New CBA Agreement Talks

[Mr Southpaw]

It seems like the owners are giving in on just about everything.

MLB increases cap and floor in latest proposal, sets 2028 target

I am pretty sure everything will be worked out before the start of 2027.  Some of the things will hurt the Brewers (International Draft), but not that much.  Not too specific on revenue sharing.  With a $180.2 floor they should definitely sign William Contreras.

[DR28]

MLBPA will never accept anything with a Salary Cap tied to it.

Until owners stop with that, we'll be lucky to have baseball on 4th of July 2027.

[SeaBass]

These negotiations don't start until MLB gives up on their cute little salary cap side project.

[jw5511986]

4 hours ago, Mr Southpaw said:

It seems like the owners are giving in on just about everything.

MLB increases cap and floor in latest proposal, sets 2028 target

I am pretty sure everything will be worked out before the start of 2027.  Some of the things will hurt the Brewers (International Draft), but not that much.  Not too specific on revenue sharing.  With a $180.2 floor they should definitely sign William Contreras.

Unless they changed the language, draft bonuses also factor into the floor so don't expect the team to actually have $180MM in salary.

[Mr Southpaw]

I don't get the players side. The Floor will increase salaries 738 million a year.  The cap will reduce salaries 473 million a year.  That is a net increase of 265 million. More money in my pocket!

There is no way the spenders like the Dodgers and Mets can reduce salary in one year. It will take a number of years to get to the cap.  So the rich boys now will not get hurt, they just won't be able to spend more for a couple of years. The savers will be forced to spend immediately... to the tune of 738 million.  If I am a pre arby or arby guy, I am like "Let's get this thing done".

[DR28]

4 minutes ago, Mr Southpaw said:

I don't get the players side. The Floor will increase salaries 738 million a year.  The cap will reduce salaries 473 million a year.  That is a net increase of 265 million. More money in my pocket!

There is no way the spenders like the Dodgers and Mets can reduce salary in one year. It will take a number of years to get to the cap.  So the rich boys now will not get hurt, they just won't be able to spend more for a couple of years. The savers will be forced to spend immediately... to the tune of 738 million.  If I am a pre arby or arby guy, I am like "Let's get this thing done".

I'm guessing because of the Ohtani and Soto contracts?

With a cap players will never come close to those contract numbers again.

[Mr Southpaw]

So I won' be able to make double or triple the amount of my piers. Textbook definition of greed.

 

[DR28]

12 minutes ago, Mr Southpaw said:

So I won' be able to make double or triple the amount of my piers. Textbook definition of greed.

 

Agreed, gonna be interesting to see how gives in first.

If they both are gonna dig in their heels, we may not see the boys at all in 2027.

[Jopal78]

On 11/4/2026 at 8:39 AM, DR28 said:

MLBPA will never accept anything with a Salary Cap tied to it.

Until owners stop with that, we'll be lucky to have baseball on 4th of July 2027.

Likewise, the owners view the installation of a cap as non-negotiable. The real question is if ultimately there will be a real salary cap, or if the compromise is a reworked competitive balance tax operating as a soft cap (making it legitimately painful for the big clubs to outspend everyone else).

[torts]

42 minutes ago, Mr Southpaw said:

I don't get the players side. The Floor will increase salaries 738 million a year.  The cap will reduce salaries 473 million a year.  That is a net increase of 265 million. More money in my pocket!

There is no way the spenders like the Dodgers and Mets can reduce salary in one year. It will take a number of years to get to the cap.  So the rich boys now will not get hurt, they just won't be able to spend more for a couple of years. The savers will be forced to spend immediately... to the tune of 738 million.  If I am a pre arby or arby guy, I am like "Let's get this thing done".

If that is the only thing, yeah sure, but the proposal potentially eliminates guaranteed contracts.  

MLB Issues Latest Proposal To MLBPA; Union Swiftly Rejects - MLB Trade Rumors https://share.google/EBd46ogU6nrvhMkxh

[torts]

Benefits count towards the cap, $18 million a team so the cap isn't actually just salaries.  Also the cap is just a projection right now, it's not even known what the calculation is or what the actual cap for 2028 would be.

[SF70]

Zero chance the players will accept a hard cap. 

This is all posturing by the owners in negotiating a better CBA.

 

[Jopal78]

22 minutes ago, torts said:

If that is the only thing, yeah sure, but the proposal potentially eliminates guaranteed contracts.  

MLB Issues Latest Proposal To MLBPA; Union Swiftly Rejects - MLB Trade Rumors https://share.google/EBd46ogU6nrvhMkxh

I think you misread that. 
 

MLB would need to move forward with permanent replacement players if they tried to eliminate guaranteed contracts. No MLBPA member would ever even consider non-guaranteed salary

The  link actually explains that Major League Baseball offered a $1 million minimum salary, but in the details not every player would qualify for a $1 million minimum salary. Some players would qualify for a $900,000 minimum salary with the potential (but no guarantee) to get an extra $100,000 bringing the total to $1M but 

[Jopal78]

7 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Zero chance the players will accept a hard cap. 

This is all posturing by the owners in negotiating a better CBA.

 

I wouldn’t call it posturing, MLB is trying to win in the court of public opinion

The players union historically has been excellent in controlling the narrative that the players only want the status quo and that the owners are the ones with ever increasing revenues or trying to pay the players less. 
 

That is why MLB has been saying “competitive balance” until they’re blue in the face; so they can try to make the narrative that it’s not about money but rather maintaining the best product they can for the fans. 
 

We’ll see which side ultimately controls the narrative 

[GAME05]

2 hours ago, DR28 said:

If they both are gonna dig in their heels, we may not see the boys at all in 2027.

I'm not convinced there's much motivation on the owners' part. Between the few who are happy outspending everyone and the others happy to pocket the revenue sharing which already exists, are the owners really that determined to have competitive balance? If it's Competitive Balance vs. Dodgers/Yankees WS TV ratings, I know which I'd bet on.

If there were some guaranteed player spending I could see players being more open to a cap, like if they had the NBA's 52%, but then you're dealing with the owner's own insistence of not showing their real revenue, and that's a bigger roadblock.

[Mr Southpaw]

Will revenue sharing include the LAD sharing their Japanese tv rights?