All The Owners Are So Bad In Multiple Ways - Work Stoppage 2027 Style

[CubinNY]

So the fault lines for the next lock out/strike.

 

The owners want a cap. And apparently want to do away with low A clubs and not draft high school seniors. 
 

The strategy is clear- lower salaries and push entry into MLB to later in life cutting earning potential for players over the balance of their career. So instead of breaking in at 23-24, players will be breaking in at 25-26 and not have free agent rights until 32. There some talk of raising the salary minimums and quicker free agency. 
 

They are writing the destruction of baseball so they can squeeze until the players bleed all the money back to them. 
 

it will be interesting to see if the teams open the books or just pull arbitrary numbers. I’m sure the current executive Administration can help them with that. 

Edited February 22 by CubinNY

[Gjfificifjdej]

I don’t think games are missed, maybe im wrong but the owners can’t possibly be that dumb. I also can’t see the 10 or so poorest teams agreeing to a spending floor. Overall a salary cap would likely be catastrophic for parity and competition if the NHL is any example, it’s basically the same 4-5 teams every year, and rebuilds take significantly longer than the other leagues. 

[Derwood]

Salary cap without equitable revenue sharing just doesn’t work. And true revenue sharing when every team has its own tv deal also doesn’t work. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

Damn they want to prevent drafting HS kids? But they'll still be able to draft or sign children from overseas?

[CubinNY]

Brett has an article on BN showing 17 teams would be outside the cap-floor of the owners reported proposal 

Quote

In that reporting, and then reiterated in new reporting, Jon Heyman indicates the early ranges for caps and floors that the owners could be seeking: “Very early estimates suggest the proposed cap (ceiling) might be set around the $260M-$280M range and the floor around $140M-$160M.”

I thought it worth reiterating those numbers because, after a week during which he would’ve been able to receive pushback, Heyman is reiterating them. So it’s a good bet that they are the numbers that MLB’s owners really do plan to open the discussions with. 

I also thought it worth spotlighting that, heading into the 2026 season, the following clubs would be outside that payroll range if it were already in place (even at the widest listed margins):

Dodgers (too high)
Mets (too high)
Yankees (too high)
Blue Jays (too high)
Phillies (too high)
Brewers (too low)
Reds (too low)
Rockies (too low)
Twins (too low)
Pirates (too low)
Cardinals (too low)
A’s (too low)
Nationals (too low)
Rays (too low)
White Sox (too low)
Guardians (too low)
Marlins (too low)
(via FanGraphs Roster Resource)

 

[Rob]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Brett has an article on BN showing 17 teams would be outside the cap-floor of the owners reported proposal 

 

Of course, the five teams that are too high are outspending the proposed ceiling by more than the 12 teams that are below the proposed floor are underspending.

So if all the teams on the bottom spent up to the floor, and all the teams up top spent down to the ceiling, we'd see a net decline in salaries league-wide. Not exactly appealing to the players union.

[soccer10k]

10 hours ago, Rob said:

Of course, the five teams that are too high are outspending the proposed ceiling by more than the 12 teams that are below the proposed floor are underspending.

So if all the teams on the bottom spent up to the floor, and all the teams up top spent down to the ceiling, we'd see a net decline in salaries league-wide. Not exactly appealing to the players union.

But wouldn't that mean the number of players who get better contracts inreases? It's not like the top teams can pay 50 different players. You only have so many spots. So if you make those 12 teams spend up to a salary floor, they're probably not giving one guy $50M per year just to get there. Which means they're going to have to pay a few guys more money. So as far as appealing to the players overall, wouldn't you be telling them that more of them are going to get better contracts because these cheap teams are going to have to spend.

[CubinNY]

I think it would mean more younger players get long term contracts. But overall less money means just that. 

[soccer10k]

40 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I think it would mean more younger players get long term contracts. But overall less money means just that. 

Yes but in terms of being more appealing to the players union, if you told them total money spent on payroll will decrease, the top 5%-10% of players will see salaries decrease but the bottom 30% of players will see salaries increase, I’m assuming the players would be for that. I have no if it would actually play out like that though.

[Bertz]

Great read without all the histrionics coming from a lot of corners.

Smart money IMO is a repeat of last time.  Owners dick around until around Valentine's Day and then negotiations start slowly getting more reasonable.  Calendar flips to March and things actually get serious.  Deal gets done plus or minus a few days from when it would impact the regular season.  A late dramatic "breakdown in talks" is a given.

[CubinNY]

17 hours ago, Bertz said:

Great read without all the histrionics coming from a lot of corners.

Smart money IMO is a repeat of last time.  Owners dick around until around Valentine's Day and then negotiations start slowly getting more reasonable.  Calendar flips to March and things actually get serious.  Deal gets done plus or minus a few days from when it would impact the regular season.  A late dramatic "breakdown in talks" is a given.

Great read, thanks for sharing.