- This topic has 53 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 11 hours, 16 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Talks have begun.
As a subscriber to The Athletic, I can share several articles with non-subscribers. This one is a detailed overview of the issues and process.
Now that MLB's labor negotiations are underway, here's some reading to catch up on:
1. An overall guide to the process: https://t.co/mhJsZftMwe
2. A deep dive on a salary cap: https://t.co/JWQKpO0ffa
3. On the potential for a president's involvement: https://t.co/BeT1uxhAcU
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 13, 2026
Here’s ESPN’s primer.
Labor talks have begun, and we tackled the most pertinent questions on the biggest players, why a cap is desired, what the union will prioritize, and how television rights and an international draft will factor in. … https://t.co/9dkNFkdBKW
— Alden González (@Alden_Gonzalez) May 13, 2026
Good that they are beginning the discussions. Worst outcome would be cancelled games. Everyone loses in that scenario. Best outcome is some give and take on each side, which is what negotiations are all about. Hopefully we see intelligent discourse through these talks and not overly emotional rhetoric.
I can understand the desire for a salary cap and floor but I think it would be asinine to shut down part or all of the 2027 season in order to get it. That would destroy any momemntum MLB has achieved the last few years.
A more reasonable approach would be to keep the CBT but make the penalties more strict. Make the penalties hurt. If the Mets and Dodgers want to pay 200M or 300M in taxes each year and lose half of their draft picks let them do it.
Yes, shutting down a part of the season is the worst thing. Both sides need to see that whatever they may think has to happen, it is not worth an industry shut down. I think you are on the right path gscottar in that a system that allows you to pay as much as you want for talent, but it will impact you in other ways that can be potentially significant is the best framework.
I like the idea that if a team wants to buy a bunch of the best free agents and spend $100 million over the CBT, they lose a lot of draft picks. It starts with the first round pick and continues with the next round, etc. If they want to buy it, they can’t draft it, also.
And they need to eliminate a present value computation for deferred money. If a player signs a 10 year, $700 million contract, it is valued at $70 million per year for CBT purposes. It doesn’t matter how much is deferred.
I totally agree forsch. Enough of the accounting tricks and shenanigans.
The CBT tax should be 100%. If you go $200M over the limit you have a $200M tax bill. It can be escalated for repeat offenders.
And each year you go over the limit you lose a draft pick starting with round 1. Repeat offenders lose additional picks.
Along with a salary cap, penalties should be high for those that constantly have a high luxury tax. You should lose like your first 5 draft picks for an increasing amount of years. In addition, deferred money needs limits as well.
It really would KCB. A combination of the increased tax penalties and increased loss of draft picks would eventually change behavior. The CBT has justnever been strict enough.
Us their minor league teams will be devoid of potential Major League talent. That’s not going to make the owners of their mil clubs happy.
Interesting article. Rosenthal suggests that some folks in MLB might not like the fact that four of the lowest payroll teams (Brewers, Guardians, Rays, and A’s) are all leading their respective division because it undercuts the argument that small payroll teams can’t compete.
As labor fight looms, success of some MLB division leaders adds intrigue to trade deadline. Column unlocked and free to read. https://t.co/KImhaAoJTk
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) May 27, 2026
I’m sure this is DOA.
News: The MLBPA today proposed a minimum salary of $1.5 million starting in 2027 in their opening economic proposal to owners, along with significant increases to revenue sharing. Some players would reach free agency after 5 years rather than 6
Next, the owners propose tomorrow pic.twitter.com/i5WMNTo1JO
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 27, 2026
Here is the press release from the Union in larger print. I give them credit for transparency.
MLBPA Makes Opening Proposals to Benefit All Players and Build Upon Industry MomentumNEW YORK, May 27 — The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) today made an initial series of core economic proposals to open collective bargaining negotiations with Major League Baseball. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires in December.
“Today, the MLBPA presented a comprehensive set of economic proposals designed to advance the rights and benefits of players at all levels,” Interim Executive Director Bruce Meyer said. “Our goal is to preserve and improve baseball’s market system, rewarding competition on and off the field. Additionally, the players’ proposals provide increased revenue sharing initially guaranteeing every small market Club a minimum of $240m in revenue every season. This enhanced revenue sharing includes added protections to ensure Clubs prioritize winning over profiteering. Ultimately, our proposals are designed to build upon the incredible momentum and popularity of our sport world-wide.”
Among the key components proposed by the MLBPA: Significant increases to 40-man minimums, including a Major League minimum salary of $1.5m beginning in 2027
Expanded Pre-Arb Performance Bonus Program distributing more dollars to more players
Expansion of salary arbitration eligibility
Enhanced compensation and contract guarantees for players in salary arbitration
Expansion of rules aimed at combating service time manipulation
Elimination of the qualifying offer as well as the penalties for Clubs that sign free agents
Increased benefits for lower revenue Clubs who lose players to free agency
Qualified free agency for players with five or more years of service who have reached age 30
“Luxury Tax” threshold increases and removal of non-monetary penalties
A new “Competitive Integrity Tax” applying to Clubs that fail to meet minimum payroll benchmarks
Expanded draft lottery to further disincentivize tankingAdditional MLBPA Proposals that are designed to improve competition while also supporting lower revenue Clubs include:
Increased revenue sharing that initially guarantees every small market Club a minimum of $240m in revenue every season, subject to requirements that funds be used to compete on the field. Beyond that guarantee:
o Clubs will be able to keep more of the stadium-related revenues they generate
o Tens of millions in extra revenue sharing will go to low-revenue Clubs that qualify for the playoffs or have a winning record
o Significantly increased sharing of local media revenues from high to low revenue teams
Curbing revenue sharing dependence by barring excessive transfers
Penalties for Clubs that neglect to spend revenue sharing payments on team payroll
Draft picks and other benefits for low revenue Clubs active in free agency and other signings“Players across the league are engaged and involved,” Executive Subcommittee Member Brent Suter said. “We’re committed to leaving our game better for every generation of player that follows us onto the field – just like the players who came before did for us.”
“We all see the momentum in our game,” Executive Subcommittee Member Chris Bassitt said. “Amazing players and incredible fans. Attendance, viewership, interest – by any measure you want to use, our game is moving in a positive direction. We’ve put forward proposals designed to continue that trend. Support, incentivize, and reward Clubs who are committed to competing, especially small market Clubs. Compensate players fairly for the work they are doing. Preserve the rights that generations of players have fought for and grow the game all of us love.”
Not sure if Bill DeWitt would be in favor of that salary floor amount. The Cardinals would have to do a lot of spending over the winter.
(FYI, the small print is readable if you click on it)
Major League Baseball has made its cap proposal:
2027 cap: $245.3 million
Floor: $171.2 millionA 50-50 split in revenues.
More to come. pic.twitter.com/IqZqE5cpCy
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 28, 2026
It's a huge deal — albeit expected — that MLB is proposing centralizing all local TV revenue as part of its salary-cap proposal.
https://t.co/T3LdIwAuvu— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 28, 2026
It’s interesting to see the back and forth so far. From a fan standpoint, it seems like they should be able to find a middle ground to agree on pretty quickly. Whether one side or the other agrees is to be seen.
Without having access to the NYT article, would teams like the Dodgers and Mets be immediately forced to get back under the cap in this new system? There could well be some forced salary dumps, if so.
Here is the Union’s reaction to a cap. It will be the hill on which the fighting will be fiercest.
I find it interesting that the Union says their position is that of the fans, while MLB thinks they are the voice of the fans.
Statement from Interim Executive Director Bruce Meyer
Yesterday, the MLBPA presented a comprehensive package of proposals designed to improve compensation for players at all levels, and to incentivize and reward competition on the field.
The owners responded today with a demand for a salary cap system, something generations of players have fought against. The last time the owners made such an explicit push for a cap—over 30 years ago—it led to the longest work stoppage in MLB history. For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, pit player against player, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time. Caps don’t lower ticket prices for fans, eliminate tanking or ensure teams are run with equal competence. They suffocate competition by offering owners an all-purpose excuse for inaction and mediocrity.
Baseball is experiencing unprecedented momentum and owners are enjoying record viewership, revenues and franchise values. Billionaire owners are not seeking to cap their profits or asset values, only player salaries. This isn’t out of generosity or a desire to protect the game’s well-being. It’s a play to control costs, increase profits and maximize franchise values – all at the expense of players past, present and future. We’ll continue our review of the owners’ proposal and stand ready to negotiate system improvements that benefit players and fans alike.
I refuse to believe the Dodgers and Yankees will give up their TV revenue advantage without getting something back in return. These owners didn’t get to be billionaires giving valuable stuff away for nothing.
So true, bling. The owners desires are so diverse that I can’t imagine how Manfred will be able keep them all happy. It is going to complicate negotiations considerably. At least the players speak with one voice.
Without having access to the NYT article, would teams like the Dodgers and Mets be immediately forced to get back under the cap in this new system? There could well be some forced salary dumps, if so.
That hasn’t been clarified and probably won’t be until later in the process but the speculation is that any dramatic changes would have to be phased in over time to allow the Dodgers and Mets time to cut payroll and to allow for the welfare owners time to increase payroll.
My way too early prediction is that there won’t be a true cap and floor system implemented like the other professional leagues have. Instead the current CBT system will be modified with enhanced penalties on both ends of the spending spectrum. Of course this probably won’t happen until late March of 2027 so we will have to endure the endless posturing from both sides between now and then.
Do any of labor’s proposals during the ongoing negotiations suggest that a cap be placed on the enormous profits being realized by team owners? I’m not entirely certain that the owners would be thrilled with that sort of proposal, but I think it would be perfectly fair and equitable…
DeWitt will not be happy to be forced to spend $171 million.
I don’t blame him for a new direction while the WFIB take a hiatus. Bringing in Chaim signals a new direction in payroll. We all know this. He has directed funds to other areas.
https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/st-louis-cardinals/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.