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?

[Mr Southpaw]

On 11/6/2026 at 11:24 AM, GAME05 said:

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.

.75 billion dollars is a lot of additional spending if the current floor offer was accepted.

[MrTPlush]

Too much of the owners pool is full of ultra-rich teams or cheapos that don’t care. Too much of the MLBPA is MLB vets, ultra rich contract chasers, greedy dudes to ever care about a salary floor or other benefits for lower end/inexperienced players.

Result: Little changes 

[Mr Southpaw]

5 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Too much of the owners pool is full of ultra-rich teams or cheapos that don’t care. Too much of the MLBPA is MLB vets, ultra rich contract chasers, greedy dudes to ever care about a salary floor or other benefits for lower end/inexperienced players.

Result: Little changes 

By offering the cap and floor the ultra-rich and cheapo owners just get eliminated.  The ultra-rich cannot spend as much anymore and the cheapos have to spend more or get out of the game.  I think it boils down to the MLBPA and their greedy contract chasers and maybe a little bit of Boris and Company.

[da swedish german]

ahh unions. "caring" about the common man.  

meanwhile guys like Carlos Rendon and Juan soto are screwing over their "average" colleagues. although the current situation has seemed to benefit the brewers who are signing their young guys as soon as possible so everyone wins.  

think Bauers would've taken a guaranteed 30+million 10 years ago? 

[MrTPlush]

41 minutes ago, da swedish german said:

ahh unions. "caring" about the common man.  

meanwhile guys like Carlos Rendon and Juan soto are screwing over their "average" colleagues. although the current situation has seemed to benefit the brewers who are signing their young guys as soon as possible so everyone wins.  

think Bauers would've taken a guaranteed 30+million 10 years ago? 

I always pondered, what if all players got an equal vote, including those in the minors?

9/10 players would benefit from stuff likely higher league minimum, bigger pre-arb bonuses, less team control, and all the other stuff that would get most of them to the majors faster. It would also give more players a better opportunity.

Gotta protect those half a billion dollar contracts and contract abuse like Kyle Tucker/Ohtani etc.

[Thurston Fluff]

The players focus on the cap seems misplaced to me. The key for the them should be the overall amount of revenue the teams are willing to share. If they're satisfied with 50% of the revenue who cares if there's a cap? They get their share either way.  All a cap would do is change which players get how much. It would hurt the agents and about .5% of the top tier players but help a lot more players who aren't on that top shelf. If the players succeed in not getting a cap but fail to get a specified portion of revenue then all the teams are allowed to use the Brewers/Rays/Guardians model and not pay anyone. It's not collusion to find a cheaper way to produce the same product. 

[mudbutt]

Because they see what happened to other leagues with that arrangement. Owners play games with what is actually defined as revenue, so it’s not actually a 50/50 split. Which is already happening now with the MLB negotiations as the proposed floor and cap include more than just salaries. And then what happens in every CBA afterwards, the revenue definition is fought over, along with the percentages, to slowly whittle down the players each CBA expiration.

[Brewcrew82]

Despite the routine bluster from both sides, I'm not necessarily convinced the players will hold the line on a salary cap if MLB owners offer a $1.5M+ minimum salary around March or so, when the possibility of missing regular season game checks really comes into focus. Will the player reps break ranks like they did last time?

Feel like that's going to be the moment of truth because after that the only thing preventing us from a severely reduced season or even a missed season outright is the willingness of the owners to lose out on their next media 

My expectation remains a 120+ game season and no hard cap (but increased revenue sharing and harsher CBT penalties), but honestly no outcome would surprise me at this point given the entrenchment and animosity from these guys. 

[Team Canada]

It seems to me that the primary problem is not the lack of a cap, but the lack of money. I.e., the solution is to drastically change revenue sharing such that all teams have about the same to spend. Could Cohen still dump a bunch of his own money, sure, but that's likely to mostly lead to a bunch of drastically overpaid veterans, which isn't going to guarantee success.

I don't understand how players still routinely say "the issue is teams don't spend money - everyone could spend if they wanted to." That's objectively false. On the whole, I think it'd benefit the players as a whole to change the distribution of money, and most teams as well; the one thing it doesn't do is cap expenses, so wouldn't increase the franchise values like the owners want.