https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/2059720906499375547?s=20
Unsurprisingly, MLB found the union’s opening salvo underwhelming.
“We appreciate the union making a set of proposals and we look forward to continuing the bargaining process and working towards solving the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us needs to be addressed,” said MLB spokesman Glen Caplin. “We understand their proposals are designed to benefit players. Unfortunately, they do not address and in fact exacerbate the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us we must address.
“The MLBPA’s proposal would reduce the amount transferred to lower-revenue clubs, weaken the competitive balance tax, and lead to even more payroll disparity than exists today. For example, under the union’s proposal, the Dodgers would pay less in luxury tax payments, giving them an additional $70 million to spend on payroll.”
1 Like
3 Likes
Realize, and one of the articles I read stated this as well, this is just the beginning. Neither side thinks what is presented today will be what ends up happening.
50/50 split in revenues, not sure where it stands today.
Every major sport is about 50/50 players vs teams in terms of revenue.
Thats how MLB should be. Have a revenue sharing deal. Have the salary cap be 50% of lea Revenue. And floor be ~70% of that. Done. Simple.
Make it a hard cap. Or if you MUST have a tax system. Then make it HURT like the NBA, where virtually every dollar your over, you pay $5. (Its a little more complicated than that but thats the simple version)
And the cap ONLY applies to the MLB rostered players. And “2way” minor players. Or prospects. Every one else falls on the owners. Half of the 50/50 to pay.
If it’s a tax, make em pay in draft picks, too.
1 Like
Ooo i like that. First 10m over, 3rd round pick. $50m over 2nd round. $100m 1st.
2 Likes
There’s little sense in delving too deeply into the weeds on original proposals. Both sides’ first overture was always going to be a total nonstarter for the other party. That the league and union began exchanging proposals more than six months prior to the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement (on Dec. 1) is likely to be a moot point. The last time around, they began negotiating even earlier, and the two parties still spent the 2021-22 offseason embroiled in a 99-day lockout that put a stoppage on all major league transactions (e.g. trades, waiver claims, free agent signings). Both sides continually blew past artificial negotiating “deadlines” until a much more tangible, real-world deadline — Opening Day 2022 — was firmly on the horizon.
It’d register as an immense surprise if Meyer and commissioner Rob Manfred were able to hammer out a new deal prior to the expiration of the current agreement. However, the fact that a lockout is a near inevitability does not mean that the same is true of missed games in 2027. The league’s formal proposition of a cap/floor system is surely intended to signal a hardline stance, as was the case with the union’s proposal (which, among other things, included a soft salary floor with no cap, substantial increases to league minimum salary, a tripling of
Another article free at ESPN
The one difference, not noted in the copied section above on the early start to negotiations by both. Last time MLB didn’t give a counter to the MLBPA til August some 10 weeks later than 2026. While they are correct that the early start may not mean a lot, there is a notable difference in the timeline this negotiation. See if it matters
MUCH bigger of a deal this time around tho,
Last time it was a relatively simple negotiation.
Tax increases, top player bonuses and playoff format, as well as minor things like pitch clock.
The player bonuses was the hang up.
But yea theres always a disagreement on “tax limit” as well as the penalties and minimum salary.
All those things are on the table again this time. BUT now were dealing with the cap and floor issues. And is it a hard cap or a tax system.
Players want the hard floor and a soft tax.
Owners want a soft floor (lower than players) but a hard cap or super heavy tax.
Almost forgot DEFERMENTS.
Those have make the cap almost pointless . But both sides love them. Player get more money. Owner spread out the cost.
They need to limit the length and amount. Which will be a major sticking point
Solution.
50/50 split. Owners and players.
The trick is trying to come up with a cap and floor so the average payroll is about 50/50. If the cap is at 50% not every team will go to the cap. 50% floor players will get more than 50%.
So 50/50 split. Player benefits are 10.5% of their 50%.
So the average needs to be 44.75% of the revenue.
So make the cap and floor 25% higher and lower than that. HARD floor. And heavy tax cap. (Happy medium between the two proposals)
Say revenue for 2026 is 13Bill
Heavy tax cap $242.4
Hard floor$145.4
Hopefully both sides can come to agree on that
Bowden and Duquette with a good discussion on the MLBPA offer, was an interesting discussion.
Bowden:
- Teams will be paying players 800m-1B more per year. No discussion where the money will come from
- The offer helps the big market teams spend more money while making the small market teams go through more hoops ie being penalized more.
- Sure Rays in first place, Guardians, Athletics. But who wins the titles? Not the Rays, not the Guardians.
- The 30yr old FA thing means more non tendering and may hurt players more than help.
- There is only a certain pool of money the players will get like the other leagues who already have 50/50 rev sharing. More teams will spend more and they both will benefit
Duquette:
- MLB team offer has the teams splitting the local media revenue which they haven’t done before. He was very surprised by this.
- #1 is how many of the smaller market teams can get to the threshold required which is what is really hurting those small market teams now.
- Cap will help teams value increase which in turn leads to more revenue to share. *provided owners books are truthful.
- 50/50 revenue split which hasn’t happened in baseball before.
- The 300m number makes little sense.
Baseball is in a good place right now, the recent changes have been positive for the sport. But both believe the MLB proposal seems to fit into what most of the fans are clamoring for.
It’s just the beginning so these early proposals include things to be thrown out so the PR will be positive for one side or the other.
Tried to get this right as i was listening to them.
Dodgers have 8 players making 30m, think it was 8. Huge differential vs Cleveland for example. Their GM, yesterday, said that when the played LA Ohtani’s salary alone was more than the Indian’s entire payroll for the club.
Heres another aspect the owners are scared of.
MLB was skyrocketing before the 1994 lockout.
From 1995-2013 mlb made a respectable 4% year over year revenue increase (after inflation)
But since 2014? Mlb has barely kept up with inflation.
2014 revenue adjusted for inflation $12.7bil
2025 revenue? $12.5b
If there is a lockout. I dont know if baseball ever recovers. They will become the NHL. Very niche
I don’t know. I think if there was a lockout because the owners were adamant about a cap, we’d stick around. If I have to keep watching baseball where the discrepancy between the Dodgers and the lowest is like 500m? Yeah, I’m out.
2 Likes
The salary cap idea is one thing. But if you can defer money decades away it remains a joke.
Ohtani makes 2 mill per season. Barely more than vet minimum. He gambles that much most mornings before lunch
3 Likes
Thats the biggest issue.
10 years $2m annual
Then 10 years after $68m annually
So stupid. Nfl allows 5 years max for bonuses each year being equal
Nhl has no differments
Nba only 25% per year allowed but thats cash only. Cap hits still stay,