MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[TheLeviathan]

10 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I'm thinking that U.S colleges and universities should eliminate all sports. Athletes can play in club or professional leagues, similar to what is done in the remainder of the world. Seems like schools should be for getting an education. If one is familiar with the work load of a college athlete, you know that academics is not on the agenda. 

The latest proposal is likely somewhat tongue in cheek but hey why not have taxpayers pick up the bill for training more baseball players. 

I also yearn for the day when college sports look more like they do in Europe.  Our current model is just utter nonsense.

[Mike Sixel]

I've wished for colleges to abolish sports for a long time....

[NYCTK]

On 6/3/2026 at 9:13 PM, 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. 

Jokes on you, the Mets suck despite spending a billion dollars. 

But, honestly, you don't know jack sh*t about me, so I'd kindly ask you not to assign bullsh*t motives to my arguments. 

As we saw again today, the owners are not negotiating in good faith. 

[NYCTK]

On 6/3/2026 at 9:35 PM, TheLeviathan said:

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!)

 

 

Got a book for you. 

[NYCTK]

On 6/10/2026 at 10:13 AM, tony&rodney said:

Andre Dawson, Gary Gaetti, and Jack Morris were among the dozens of players who had to take what they could get.

I'm still convinced in MLB collusion against Barry Bonds. You're telling me a man with a 169 OPS+ was too much of a headache, while wife-beaters get signed each season? I call ********. 

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

I'm still convinced in MLB collusion against Barry Bonds. You're telling me a man with a 169 OPS+ was too much of a headache, while wife-beaters get signed each season? I call ********. 

He offered to sign for the minimum to play for any team. 

Despite the vitriol amassed by Barry Bonds because he never "officially" tested positive/ beat the system and despite his poor treatment of journalist among other people, Bonds was still one of the top players in MLB when his contract expired. 

[Trov]

So MLB throws out yet another proposal that will get a hard no at this point from players, under the argument we are doing it for the fans.  The highlights are shorter contracts, hard caps(with small amount of players sounds like could go over the cap), max contracts, and no deferred money. 

I see two things worth discussing for a fan, is a max contract and shorter contracts the way to go?  The length of contracts would be 5 years for moving to another team, and 6 years if remaining with your team.  This is similar to NBA that has a 4 and 5 year caps, with max numbers.  One thing it has done for NBA is actually lead to a lot more player movement.  I personally not a huge fan of player movement as much, but keeping players on their teams longer.  

The max contracts, combined with hard cap, which players will never agree too either, would help with not allowing one team from buying up all the talent and having it spread out much more. Similar to NBA it would lead to more players staying with teams because of getting that extra year.  I do think a cap, hard or soft, with max contracts would block teams from buying up, or trading for all the talent.

Do I think the players will ever agree to it, not a chance.  If the MLB thinks this will lead to agreement they are crazy.  From both sides they appear to be miles apart on a deal and there will be a stoppage. The question will be for how long, and who will blink first? 

The players have a war chest, but that eventually will run out.  The owners have more money than the players, but they also are business people and do not like to throw money away.  By not having games, that is money they are not making and they will still have to pay certain expenses.  Minor league players still need to get paid, front office people, managers, and other overhead will still come out. Yes, the large chunk of players pay will not be done, or expenses related to that, but there are many expenses not related to those that need to be paid. 

How long will owners dump money not taking any in?  How long will players not earn money depleting their war chest? If the owners wanted to hold out, they could longer, they have the billions. Will they?  Will they stand united?  What will happen if it becomes prolonged? 

Bryce Harper talked to press about how missing games would be terrible for baseball.  That is true, with rise of other competing sports and ability to get entertained by other sports these days, baseball cannot just simply say, we are baseball we are supreme. But that works both ways for players and owners. 

Owners, if they lose money they can right it off, or declare bankruptcy.  Players, if there is no money coming in they have to figure out something else.  The owners will be fine overall financially, and can handle not earning from baseball.  None of the owners these days just make money from owning a team, most it is a side thing. 

[DJL44]

On 6/23/2026 at 9:32 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I've wished for colleges to abolish sports for a long time....

Dozens of D3 schools would close. 

[NYCTK]

51 minutes ago, Trov said:

So MLB throws out yet another proposal that will get a hard no at this point from players, under the argument we are doing it for the fans.  The highlights are shorter contracts, hard caps(with small amount of players sounds like could go over the cap), max contracts, and no deferred money. 

I see two things worth discussing for a fan, is a max contract and shorter contracts the way to go?  The length of contracts would be 5 years for moving to another team, and 6 years if remaining with your team.  This is similar to NBA that has a 4 and 5 year caps, with max numbers.  One thing it has done for NBA is actually lead to a lot more player movement.  I personally not a huge fan of player movement as much, but keeping players on their teams longer.  

The max contracts, combined with hard cap, which players will never agree too either, would help with not allowing one team from buying up all the talent and having it spread out much more. Similar to NBA it would lead to more players staying with teams because of getting that extra year.  I do think a cap, hard or soft, with max contracts would block teams from buying up, or trading for all the talent.

Do I think the players will ever agree to it, not a chance.  If the MLB thinks this will lead to agreement they are crazy.  From both sides they appear to be miles apart on a deal and there will be a stoppage. The question will be for how long, and who will blink first? 

The players have a war chest, but that eventually will run out.  The owners have more money than the players, but they also are business people and do not like to throw money away.  By not having games, that is money they are not making and they will still have to pay certain expenses.  Minor league players still need to get paid, front office people, managers, and other overhead will still come out. Yes, the large chunk of players pay will not be done, or expenses related to that, but there are many expenses not related to those that need to be paid. 

How long will owners dump money not taking any in?  How long will players not earn money depleting their war chest? If the owners wanted to hold out, they could longer, they have the billions. Will they?  Will they stand united?  What will happen if it becomes prolonged? 

Bryce Harper talked to press about how missing games would be terrible for baseball.  That is true, with rise of other competing sports and ability to get entertained by other sports these days, baseball cannot just simply say, we are baseball we are supreme. But that works both ways for players and owners. 

Owners, if they lose money they can right it off, or declare bankruptcy.  Players, if there is no money coming in they have to figure out something else.  The owners will be fine overall financially, and can handle not earning from baseball.  None of the owners these days just make money from owning a team, most it is a side thing. 

Everyone just needs to keep in mind throughout this entire process, this is all happening SOLELY because of the greed of the billionaire owners. 

[TheLeviathan]

12 hours ago, Trov said:

So MLB throws out yet another proposal that will get a hard no at this point from players, under the argument we are doing it for the fans.  The highlights are shorter contracts, hard caps(with small amount of players sounds like could go over the cap), max contracts, and no deferred money. 

I see two things worth discussing for a fan, is a max contract and shorter contracts the way to go?  The length of contracts would be 5 years for moving to another team, and 6 years if remaining with your team.  This is similar to NBA that has a 4 and 5 year caps, with max numbers.  One thing it has done for NBA is actually lead to a lot more player movement.  I personally not a huge fan of player movement as much, but keeping players on their teams longer.  

The max contracts, combined with hard cap, which players will never agree too either, would help with not allowing one team from buying up all the talent and having it spread out much more. Similar to NBA it would lead to more players staying with teams because of getting that extra year.  I do think a cap, hard or soft, with max contracts would block teams from buying up, or trading for all the talent.

Do I think the players will ever agree to it, not a chance.  If the MLB thinks this will lead to agreement they are crazy.  From both sides they appear to be miles apart on a deal and there will be a stoppage. The question will be for how long, and who will blink first? 

The players have a war chest, but that eventually will run out.  The owners have more money than the players, but they also are business people and do not like to throw money away.  By not having games, that is money they are not making and they will still have to pay certain expenses.  Minor league players still need to get paid, front office people, managers, and other overhead will still come out. Yes, the large chunk of players pay will not be done, or expenses related to that, but there are many expenses not related to those that need to be paid. 

How long will owners dump money not taking any in?  How long will players not earn money depleting their war chest? If the owners wanted to hold out, they could longer, they have the billions. Will they?  Will they stand united?  What will happen if it becomes prolonged? 

Bryce Harper talked to press about how missing games would be terrible for baseball.  That is true, with rise of other competing sports and ability to get entertained by other sports these days, baseball cannot just simply say, we are baseball we are supreme. But that works both ways for players and owners. 

Owners, if they lose money they can right it off, or declare bankruptcy.  Players, if there is no money coming in they have to figure out something else.  The owners will be fine overall financially, and can handle not earning from baseball.  None of the owners these days just make money from owning a team, most it is a side thing. 

The owners started with a super common sense proposal.  It has been straight up nonsense ever since.

[tony&rodney]

One thing that I haven't seen anywhere is how MLB proposes to display total transparency across the industry regarding all revenue. Will MLB allow the PA to check all numbers/total access?

Has anyone seen anything that addresses that basic idea?

Seems like if MLB suggests there is a 50/50 split on all revenue that there needs to be a manner in which this is openly completed. I'm not sure just saying it holds any merit.

[The Great Hambino]

9 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The owners started with a super common sense proposal.  It has been straight up nonsense ever since.

It was never meant to be common sense.  They were just banking on the general public not reading/caring about the fine print

[Parfigliano]

Whocouldaknown there would be a big roadblock to negotiations in the fact that neither side trusts the other even a little bit.

[NYCTK]

7 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

It was never meant to be common sense.  They were just banking on the general public not reading/caring about the fine print

And it's not common sense to propose something the other side has said is a hard no for decades. Just because other leagues have something doesn't make it common sense. It's up to the league and owners to show it's in everyone's best interest. 

Not to mention the owners initial cap offer was effectively deception, specifically to get support from fans, thinking it looked reasonable at first glance. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, The Great Hambino said:

It was never meant to be common sense.  They were just banking on the general public not reading/caring about the fine print

Two things can be true though....was it manipulative and meant to garner public support?  Of course, public relations spin will be constant.  The players gave phony lip service about caring about fans too.

What is common sense is the hard cap/floor where there is decided fan support.  On the central issue the owners are more aligned with fans and their initial salvo backed that.

Then they lost the plot.

[The Great Hambino]

9 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Two things can be true though....was it manipulative and meant to garner public support?  Of course, public relations spin will be constant.  The players gave phony lip service about caring about fans too.

What is common sense is the hard cap/floor where there is decided fan support.  On the central issue the owners are more aligned with fans and their initial salvo backed that.

Then they lost the plot.

I think they were misleading from the jump the way they disguised their definitions of both payroll and revenue to make both the floor and the ceiling look a lot more reasonable than they actually were.  Every detail they've revealed since has made it worse

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I think they were misleading from the jump the way they disguised their definitions of both payroll and revenue to make both the floor and the ceiling look a lot more reasonable than they actually were.  Every detail they've revealed since has made it worse

Can you elaborate on the payroll/revenue point please?

[The Great Hambino]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Can you elaborate on the payroll/revenue point please?

My understanding is that they presented the floor while including a bunch of costs like health benefits that are normally never considered to be part of payroll in other sports that use a cap or any context in which payroll is normally discussed.  So a $245MM/$170MM floor (or whatever it was) was really overstated by about $20MM on both ends in terms of how payroll is almost always discussed.  Furthermore, their claim of a 50/50 revenue split came after removing certain costs from the calculation, so they were really talking about less than 50% of gross revenue going to the players.  Deliberately misleading on both fronts.  

This is all with the caveat that I didn't, like, read through their entire proposal myself or anything.  My understanding is based on the mild-to-moderate amount I've read about it.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, The Great Hambino said:

My understanding is that they presented the floor while including a bunch of costs like health benefits that are normally never considered to be part of payroll in other sports that use a cap or any context in which payroll is normally discussed.  So a $245MM/$170MM floor (or whatever it was) was really overstated by about $20MM on both ends in terms of how payroll is almost always discussed.  Furthermore, their claim of a 50/50 revenue split came after removing certain costs from the calculation, so they were really talking about less than 50% of gross revenue going to the players.  Deliberately misleading on both fronts.  

This is all with the caveat that I didn't, like, read through their entire proposal myself or anything.  My understanding is based on the mild-to-moderate amount I've read about it.

Devil is certainly in the details.  I'll continue to root for the players to get a 60-40 split of revenues.

Putting aside the legalise and PR shenanigans, any proposal that does not include a cap and floor is going to be swimming upstream on public sentiment.  The Athletic's fan poll has some interesting elements but it's pretty clear that what the players are willing to hold out for doesn't align with what fans want. Especially since I'd argue sports fans reading the New York Times are probably about the most player-sympathetic data-set you could possibly hope for as players.  The average fan is going to be (in my opinion) even further towards the ownership argument that any agreement without a cap is not good for the game.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Devil is certainly in the details.  I'll continue to root for the players to get a 60-40 split of revenues.

Putting aside the legalise and PR shenanigans, any proposal that does not include a cap and floor is going to be swimming upstream on public sentiment.  The Athletic's fan poll has some interesting elements but it's pretty clear that what the players are willing to hold out for doesn't align with what fans want. Especially since I'd argue sports fans reading the New York Times are probably about the most player-sympathetic data-set you could possibly hope for as players.  The average fan is going to be (in my opinion) even further towards the ownership argument that any agreement without a cap is not good for the game.

MLBPA is largely unconcerned with fan sentiment. But still all the more reason to loudly support the players. 

[tony&rodney]

The basic complaint I hear from all corners about MLB is related to parity or competitive balance. While I do not believe comparisons across different leagues works very smoothly we do hear most comments include the NFL, NBA, and NHL. If Colorado defeats Minnesota this afternoon (June 28), MLB will not have any clubs winning less than 40% of their games. There are zero teams winning 70% of their games. I'm not sure there has ever been anything close to that parity in NFL or NBA history. Statistically, MLB is the clear winner when it comes to parity. However, I did begin by suggesting that I don't really believe the comparisons are smooth.

While many people are laser-focused on caps, I just don't see it as an option. MLB created the current revenue sharing problem earlier this century when they began making various exceptions to what counted and what did not count for putting revenue into a pot to distribute across each member club. MLB. likewise, can "fix" how revenue is defined, collected, and paid out. I'm not sure how much participation the PA would even have in that process because it seems that MLB teams (a few exceptions) are not willing to make their books public. The owners in baseball have always kept their little club to themselves and mostly agreed at their meetings about how to deal with each other. 

Jake McKibbin, among others, have written about whether MLB needs to adjust their revenue sharing. I believe that the solution to the next CBA will need to be worked out in the owner meetings. The small details of free agency, arbitration, years of contract control, etc. take a back seat to whether/how the owners distribute revenue.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

The basic complaint I hear from all corners about MLB is related to parity or competitive balance. While I do not believe comparisons across different leagues works very smoothly we do hear most comments include the NFL, NBA, and NHL. If Colorado defeats Minnesota this afternoon (June 28), MLB will not have any clubs winning less than 40% of their games. There are zero teams winning 70% of their games. I'm not sure there has ever been anything close to that parity in NFL or NBA history. Statistically, MLB is the clear winner when it comes to parity. However, I did begin by suggesting that I don't really believe the comparisons are smooth.

If I told you that MLB is broken because none of the NHL, NFL, or NBA leagues allow their teams to get to 100 wins what would you say?

Now apply that same logic about the nature of baseball.  Baseball has a crap ton of random outcomes in any sample.  Way more than the NBA or NFL and more even than the NHL.   We should make competitive balance arguments within the confines of MLB because the game itself is too different to be compared in the manner in which you are.

[tony&rodney]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

If I told you that MLB is broken because none of the NHL, NFL, or NBA leagues allow their teams to get to 100 wins what would you say?

Now apply that same logic about the nature of baseball.  Baseball has a crap ton of random outcomes in any sample.  Way more than the NBA or NFL and more even than the NHL.   We should make competitive balance arguments within the confines of MLB because the game itself is too different to be compared in the manner in which you are.

I'm sorry to ask but did you read my comment?

I specifically said that comparisons don't work across the different leagues. I then went on the suggest that the failure to share revenue was a collective ownership driven issue and further suggested that only the owners can solve that issue (sharing of revenue). The mention of winning percentages across leagues is not a valid point of contention as I don't believe the comparison work smoothly as I said in my comment. The number one comment made on this site and on other places as well suggest caps as an answer and in every case the reference points are the other leagues and parity/ ability to be competitive. 

To reiterate I don't believe the comparisons work between leagues, whether that is winning percentage, parity, or caps. I believe this is an ownership driven problem that will only be solved by the owners. Many people disagree and there are some who would like a return to the systems in place before the 1970s. Change happens and we will find out soon enough what direction the owners want to take.

Just as an aside, I wonder how your graph would look if it included the time since the owners changed the revenue stuff about 10-15 years ago or even using the 21st century. I'm not sure the narrow window of 2022-2025 tells us anything. Have you read Mckibbin?

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, tony&rodney said:

I'm sorry to ask but did you read my comment?

I specifically said that comparisons don't work across the different leagues.....

 

But then you made that comparison anyway.  If you didn't think it had validity as an argument, why go to the lengths to post it?

[tony&rodney]

42 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

But then you made that comparison anyway.  If you didn't think it had validity as an argument, why go to the lengths to post it?

The mention of percentage, parity, and ability to compete along with caps are the main feature of almost every single comment on the upcoming CBA. It seemed worth a mention and perhaps I could have been more clear, although twice I mentioned that comparisons aren't very useful in my opinion. Others will disagree with that. I then spent two paragraphs explaining what I see as the only big fight in the upcoming CBA, which is how will owners solve the their problem with revenue distribution. It takes two teams to play a game. You need to read McKibbin for a quick introduction to the source of the real issue with MLB. I didn't go into any length on parity really. One could point to a vast number of statistics to make that point which I didn't because I don't believe the comparisons across leagues are useful. I feel the same about caps - not useful for comparison, which could also be gone into at length. Revenue sharing is the main thing.

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

The mention of percentage, parity, and ability to compete along with caps are the main feature of almost every single comment on the upcoming CBA. It seemed worth a mention and perhaps I could have been more clear, although twice I mentioned that comparisons aren't very useful in my opinion. Others will disagree with that. I then spent two paragraphs explaining what I see as the only big fight in the upcoming CBA, which is how will owners solve the their problem with revenue distribution. It takes two teams to play a game. You need to read McKibbin for a quick introduction to the source of the real issue with MLB. I didn't go into any length on parity really. One could point to a vast number of statistics to make that point which I didn't because I don't believe the comparisons across leagues are useful. I feel the same about caps - not useful for comparison, which could also be gone into at length. Revenue sharing is the main thing.

Part of my issue is people say things like "comparisons aren't very useful" and then proceed to make that comparison as if it is.  

I agree that revenue distribution is wildly important.  I do not see that happening without a cap and a floor.  These things all are inter-related.  The owner of the New York Knicks would probably love to keep all of the money he'd get in broadcasting, distribution, gate, etc. Instead he shares all of that revenue...but in return he wants a system in place that prevents other owners from underspending the money that is being shared (floor) as well as a measure to prevent some guy (like...Detroit Tiger owner who was about to die and spent like a drunken sailor) from having an advantage he could have had by keeping all his own revenues but he no longer has because he shared.  All of those elements have to work in lockstep to create a balanced competitive environment.  

Like the rest of the leagues have.  When the Milwaukee Brewers go to play the New York Yankees they have a metric f*ck-ton of disadvantages working against them that the Bucks and Knicks don't.  Or the Packers and Jets.  Or the Mammoth and Rangers.  Revenue sharing is the central thing and should be shared with zero carve-outs - players get a share of everything.  But no league can set that up without a cap/floor that ensures the competition happens between the lines and through competent management.

What every other league has, regardless of the whacky nature of each individual sport, is that last part.  Baseball does not.  Fans - who have a great deal of say in how this turns out contrary to other opinions - want that to change.  Either side tht doesn't understand that could deeply regret it in the years ahead.

 

[tony&rodney]

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Part of my issue is people say things like "comparisons aren't very useful" and then proceed to make that comparison as if it is.  

I agree that revenue distribution is wildly important.  I do not see that happening without a cap and a floor.  These things all are inter-related.  The owner of the New York Knicks would probably love to keep all of the money he'd get in broadcasting, distribution, gate, etc. Instead he shares all of that revenue...but in return he wants a system in place that prevents other owners from underspending the money that is being shared (floor) as well as a measure to prevent some guy (like...Detroit Tiger owner whose about to die and spent like a drunken sailor) from having an advantage he could have had by keeping all his own revenues but he no longer has because he shared.  All of those elements have to work in lockstep to create a balanced competitive environment.  

Like the rest of the leagues have.  When the Milwaukee Brewers go to play the New York Yankees they have a metric f*ck-ton of disadvantages working against them that the Bucks and Knicks don't.  Or the Packers and Jets.  Or the Mammoth and Rangers.  Revenue sharing is the central thing and should be shared with zero carve-outs - players get a share of everything.  But no league can set that up without a cap/floor that ensures the competition happens between the lines and through competent management.

What every other league has, regardless of the whacky nature of each individual sport, is that last part.  Baseball does not.  Fans - who have a great deal of say in how this turns out contrary to other opinions - want that to change.  Either side tht doesn't understand that could deeply regret it in the years ahead.

 

Ok. You make your point. You believe caps are important and also draw comparisons to other leagues. Seems normal to me and what most people have done/believe. My first paragraph brought those ideas in precisely because that is what you and others bring up. I wanted to address that reality. I don't see the comparisons as critical. I believe the issues that trouble MLB are owner induced and can only be solved by the owners. In the past I have stated that I believe the CBA will be finished by April of 2027. I still believe that as of now. My concern is that MLB chooses to shut down the game, which will have some unintended consequences which may last more than a decade or two and actually solve nothing. However, I don't know what will occur and  just wish for the best. 

[TheLeviathan]

23 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Ok. You make your point. You believe caps are important and also draw comparisons to other leagues. Seems normal to me and what most people have done/believe. My first paragraph brought those ideas in precisely because that is what you and others bring up. I wanted to address that reality. I don't see the comparisons as critical. I believe the issues that trouble MLB are owner induced and can only be solved by the owners. In the past I have stated that I believe the CBA will be finished by April of 2027. I still believe that as of now. My concern is that MLB chooses to shut down the game, which will have some unintended consequences which may last more than a decade or two and actually solve nothing. However, I don't know what will occur and  just wish for the best. 

I compared how money is shared, not anything between the lines.  I find the comparisons between the lines to be silly, but money is money.  

Cap/floor arrangements are the guardrails and sanity checks that allow an agreement on shared revenue to proceed.  It's like everyone agreeing to split the bill at a restaurant but not before the ensure that no one is just getting water or buying their way through the most expensive items on the list.

[The Great Hambino]

13 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I agree that revenue distribution is wildly important.  I do not see that happening without a cap and a floor. 

Regardless of what I think ought to happen, I think this true given the nature of CBAs being the product of negotiation and not some emperor's decree.   

The leveling of revenue distribution will drive competitive balance more than any other factor ... as long as those revenue-sharing recipients actually invest these receipts into payroll.  And as revenue-sharing recipients have shown with their behavior, they won't do this if they aren't forced to do so - they'll simply pocket it and ride the gravy train to profitability.  So in essence, you're just taking money away from teams willing to spend it and giving it to teams that won't.  That's why the CBA is written so that players have to approve changes in revenue sharing, and why they pushed back against increased revenue sharing in the last round of CBA negotiations. 

In order for players to agree to increased revenue sharing, they have to have assertions that the barnacles of MLB ownership are forced to spend it.  There's your floor.  At the same time, the owners aren't going to agree to a floor with some real teeth in it without a major concession coming their way.  There's your cap.

So is floor/cap theoretically necessary for meaningful revenue sharing?  Not necessarily.  Is it necessary to get it through a negotiation-driven process?  I think it is.

Along those lines, I find it very hard to believe the cap we arrive at will be a hard one if derived through negotiations.  I don't know what MLB would have to offer to make a hard cap palatable to the players - 60% of gross revenue?  A floor approaching 90%?  Would that even be enough?  Would MLB ever agree to that even if it resulted in a hard cap?  I don't know.  So some soft cap with enough levers and exceptions that there can be reasonable debate over it even constitutes a cap is the most likely landing point in my eyes, assuming no one hits the big red button and nukes the sport

[TheLeviathan]

27 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

ines, I find it very hard to believe the cap we arrive at will be a hard one if derived through negotiations.  I don't know what MLB would have to offer to make a hard cap palatable to the players - 60% of gross revenue?  A floor approaching 90%?  Would that even be enough?  Would MLB ever agree to that even if it resulted in a hard cap?  I don't know.  So some soft cap with enough levers and exceptions that there can be reasonable debate over it even constitutes a cap is the most likely landing point in my eyes, assuming no one hits the big red button and nukes the sport

I think you're probably right.  I hate the NBA's Frankenstein of nonsense they call a cap, but it feels like we may be headed there with baseball.  It's better than nothing.

I really wish for the outcome of 60/40 and a hard cap though.