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

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I don't know. But I have a hard time seeing the big clubs willing to send that much money to the small clubs, if they are telling the truth about revenue. I don't believe they are telling the truth.

It's funny how you can play with numbers. The "average" payroll is 183 million, but the median payroll is well south of that at 174 million. 

If they were to somehow manage a cap at 270 million, only 5 teams would be over the cap, while 18 would be under the floor. I'm having a hard time making the math work unless the "small" teams are hiding money. 

I agree. Which is why I don’t see a salary cap with a floor and total revenue sharing as something owners really want. I just don’t see a format 23 teams would agree to. To me it is an ask they can give in on as some sort of give back to the players to get something they really want. 

[macarthur31]

 

This feels like the Owners are clarifying their commitment to the salary cap, yet providing guidance for GMs on how they could proceed in this offseason?

[Bertz]

3 hours ago, macarthur31 said:

 

This feels like the Owners are clarifying their commitment to the salary cap, yet providing guidance for GMs on how they could proceed in this offseason?

Honestly, shockingly detailed and productive proposal considering where we are on the calendar.  Lots of little details like minimum salary and such addressed too

Like obviously the cap is and should be a non starter, but there is legitimately good stuff in here.  Last go around the owners more or less wrote "*Fart Noise*" on a piece of paper and faxed it over until February when they finally started taking things seriously.

It's honestly weirdly unnerving.  Like is this a sign that they're confident they'll get this over the line?  Or is this the opposite?  Basically Moreno and Monfort dipping out made it so there's no longer enough appetite for a 100 day labor battle?

[macarthur31]

16 hours ago, Bertz said:

Honestly, shockingly detailed and productive proposal considering where we are on the calendar.  Lots of little details like minimum salary and such addressed too

Like obviously the cap is and should be a non starter, but there is legitimately good stuff in here.  Last go around the owners more or less wrote "*Fart Noise*" on a piece of paper and faxed it over until February when they finally started taking things seriously.

It's honestly weirdly unnerving.  Like is this a sign that they're confident they'll get this over the line?  Or is this the opposite?  Basically Moreno and Monfort dipping out made it so there's no longer enough appetite for a 100 day labor battle?

My stance is that I'm incredibly distrustful of the Owners - or to be be more clearer - I'm holding the mental model that the Owners top priority is to maximize profit, and it's secondary or tertiary that their offerings  will be good for the game.  I also am holding that this particular CBA negotiation is crucial given the next major MLB media deal can be negotiate in 2028, and that Manfred really wants to get the centralized media package set up and expansion sorted before then.  (Rationale - he could sell the most media inventory in one fell swoop.)

While I don't hold that the players are saints themselves, I understand their top priority is to ensure there isn't a cap on their earnings.  Perhaps I'm naive in that I'd assess that they care about the "state of the game" more than the owners - but, I'll rationalize that at the end of the day, these guys have to play it day in and day out.  (Of course, if the game rules change too much, their own career viability would be jeopardized, so of course there's self-interest there.)  Also noting, while that the MLBPA hasn't been able to effectively save the "middle class" contract as there is a vast inequity between the Juan Soto (and soon to be Tarik Skubal) few earners vs. rank and file, I also don't think it's on the players to curb their earnings in service to ensuring owners can maximize their profit.

All that being said - the MLB Owners are consistently presenting themselves as trying to solve the problem, and detailed proposals like this (however flawed they might be) keep reinforcing this image.  If the "court of public opinion" matters in the likes of this battle, the Owners are doing a real solid job - while the MLBPA has presented itself as the "party of No."  And, on its merits, I get why they get to do that - but they are really leaning on the fans to be able to look at the balcony view.  And perhaps in our current era where the "Billionaire Class" is getting all types of (earned) scrutiny, that may be enough.  

 

(Thanks for letting me ramble on this, as I'm interrogating why I tend to find myself consistently on the players' side of this issue.)

 

[mul21]

17 hours ago, Bertz said:

Honestly, shockingly detailed and productive proposal considering where we are on the calendar.  Lots of little details like minimum salary and such addressed too

Like obviously the cap is and should be a non starter, but there is legitimately good stuff in here.  Last go around the owners more or less wrote "*Fart Noise*" on a piece of paper and faxed it over until February when they finally started taking things seriously.

It's honestly weirdly unnerving.  Like is this a sign that they're confident they'll get this over the line?  Or is this the opposite?  Basically Moreno and Monfort dipping out made it so there's no longer enough appetite for a 100 day labor battle?

Have they seen the political climate and suddenly become concerned about losing their anti-trust exemption and therefore are willing to negotiate more in good faith because they know they're wildly unpopular?

[Bertz]

46 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

My stance is that I'm incredibly distrustful of the Owners - or to be be more clearer - I'm holding the mental model that the Owners top priority is to maximize profit, and it's secondary or tertiary that their offerings  will be good for the game.  I also am holding that this particular CBA negotiation is crucial given the next major MLB media deal can be negotiate in 2028, and that Manfred really wants to get the centralized media package set up and expansion sorted before then.  (Rationale - he could sell the most media inventory in one fell swoop.)

While I don't hold that the players are saints themselves, I understand their top priority is to ensure there isn't a cap on their earnings.  Perhaps I'm naive in that I'd assess that they care about the "state of the game" more than the owners - but, I'll rationalize that at the end of the day, these guys have to play it day in and day out.  (Of course, if the game rules change too much, their own career viability would be jeopardized, so of course there's self-interest there.)  Also noting, while that the MLBPA hasn't been able to effectively save the "middle class" contract as there is a vast inequity between the Juan Soto (and soon to be Tarik Skubal) few earners vs. rank and file, I also don't think it's on the players to curb their earnings in service to ensuring owners can maximize their profit.

All that being said - the MLB Owners are consistently presenting themselves as trying to solve the problem, and detailed proposals like this (however flawed they might be) keep reinforcing this image.  If the "court of public opinion" matters in the likes of this battle, the Owners are doing a real solid job - while the MLBPA has presented itself as the "party of No."  And, on its merits, I get why they get to do that - but they are really leaning on the fans to be able to look at the balcony view.  And perhaps in our current era where the "Billionaire Class" is getting all types of (earned) scrutiny, that may be enough.  

 

(Thanks for letting me ramble on this, as I'm interrogating why I tend to find myself consistently on the players' side of this issue.)

 

Yeah your last paragraph is what I'm really worried about.  Last go around the owners were loudly and proudly the bad guys.  They negotiated in this cartoonish Jack Donaghy-esque manner until the  last minute, and then had to cave.

If they force the Players into that "Party if No" position not sure the players come out victorious again this cycle.  And realistically it's going to be hard for the players to escape that position because they're mostly looking for incremental changes rather than systemic ones.

10 minutes ago, mul21 said:

Have they seen the political climate and suddenly become concerned about losing their anti-trust exemption and therefore are willing to negotiate more in good faith because they know they're wildly unpopular?

 I hadn't thought about that but it's possible.  Also doesn't help their case that Trump loudly and bluntly said he doesn't give a horsefeathers about this issue so they're not going to get support from that direction either.

The salary cap has long felt IMO like an Overton window sort of play rather than a real goal they expect to get done this cycle.  Reason being is the owners need the players on board for media rights changes and I believe expansion.  So my expectation was this strawman was being built up explicitly to be traded for those two things at the 11th hour.

Seeing the owners be vaguely reasonable this early (even if their proposal certainly has a poison pill or three) makes me think either:

A) They really think they can get a cap over the finish line if they negotiate in something resembling good faith

or

B) Whether because of political climate, change in membership (my guess), or something else the owners no longer wish to arbitrarily drag this fight out for 3 months

[macarthur31]

2 hours ago, Bertz said:

Yeah your last paragraph is what I'm really worried about.  Last go around the owners were loudly and proudly the bad guys.  They negotiated in this cartoonish Jack Donaghy-esque manner until the  last minute, and then had to cave.

If they force the Players into that "Party if No" position not sure the players come out victorious again this cycle.  And realistically it's going to be hard for the players to escape that position because they're mostly looking for incremental changes rather than systemic ones.

 I hadn't thought about that but it's possible.  Also doesn't help their case that Trump loudly and bluntly said he doesn't give a horsefeathers about this issue so they're not going to get support from that direction either.

The salary cap has long felt IMO like an Overton window sort of play rather than a real goal they expect to get done this cycle.  Reason being is the owners need the players on board for media rights changes and I believe expansion.  So my expectation was this strawman was being built up explicitly to be traded for those two things at the 11th hour.

Seeing the owners be vaguely reasonable this early (even if their proposal certainly has a poison pill or three) makes me think either:

A) They really think they can get a cap over the finish line if they negotiate in something resembling good faith

or

B) Whether because of political climate, change in membership (my guess), or something else the owners no longer wish to arbitrarily drag this fight out for 3 months

While I'm pro Player in this, I also acknowledge that the Commissioner has really facilitated some bold steps that has increased my enjoyment of the game - pitch clock, ABS, banning the shift, making the bases bigger... Yeah, I'll even cop to appreciating the "ghost runner" in the regular season.  (And, of course, he's had his share of mis-steps, like calling the Commissioner's Trophy a "piece of metal".).  But yeah, the Owners aren't outwardly twirling their moustaches and laughing deviously this time around.

Which means that the Players/PA can't keep being "Party of No", and leading with "we owe it to those who came before us..." which is absolutely true, but the plain talk reality is that folks are gonna find it tough to empathize with them because pro athletes make so much money playing a "kids game" (but for some reason, are perfectly comfortable with owners pocketing the profits that would've gone to the players).  I get that their top priority is to ensure that they can maximize their earning (as well as preserve that for the generations that follow them), but framing limits them from acknowledging what of all of this is good for the fans.

The Athletic ran a poll this summer, and 45.3% of fans said they'd blame the Owners, 30.6% would blame both, while 21.9% would blame the Players.  Again, it's The NYT/Athletic, so unsure how that subscriber base compares to the general baseball fanbase.  I was somewhat surprised, as it seemed to me that the Owners were invested in the "political advertising/marketing" of their "Leveling the Playing Field" campaign, and sought social media influencers to serve as their "street team" on their talking points.  Perhaps the larger zeitgeist which appears to be anti-oligarchy is very palpable, the small market World Series showdown, and the growth of MLB Player/Alumni media like Trevor May's YouTube Channel, Foul Territory, and Ian Happ's own Compound podcast have been effective in the Owner's media campaign -- all of these have helped seeded a tougher rhetorical terrain for the Owners to navigate; hence they're fronting this "we're doing this for the good of the game" posture.  (Though no one asked them to divvy up the media package across several different OTA/streaming platforms, keep jacking up ticket prices, etc.)

 

[Manny Trillos Brother]

I am pretty pro-player here and generally disagree with the owners, but this frankly doesn't sound like too bad of a proposal. Only 6 teams spent more than $258m this year so the "Salary Cap" is really only affecting those particular teams (assuming it goes up each year/couple of years). There is much more to be gained for total salaries by pushing the low spending teams to a $180m floor than there is to be lost by players reigning in the highest spenders. 

Couple that with a version of MLS's "Premier Player" exception and/or some kind of a Homegrown Player exception and I think you have something. You could even add on the "punishment" structure of the NBA which allows spenders to spend if you really want to go for it for a couple of years. That kind of system would allow/incentivize say the Pirates to keep Skenes or the Rays to sign Caminero to a big deal.  I think that really solves a big issue for fans of teams in the bottom third or so of payroll. 

[Gjfificifjdej]

Is anybody aware of where they are at wrt moving from 162 to 154 games? I remember that being proposed but it wasn’t mentioned in the most recent proposal from MLB.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

15 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

Is anybody aware of where they are at wrt moving from 162 to 154 games? I remember that being proposed but it wasn’t mentioned in the most recent proposal from MLB.

I doubt there's gonna be any real negotiations until the new year. All that's happened so far is public posturing.

[Bertz]

Shortening the season feels like it's at near the top of the list of most likely things to come out of the new CBA.  Only question is 154 or 156 IMO.  But a dedicated off day every week feels like something everyone wants.

[CubinNY]

16 hours ago, Bertz said:

Shortening the season feels like it's at near the top of the list of most likely things to come out of the new CBA.  Only question is 154 or 156 IMO.  But a dedicated off day every week feels like something everyone wants.

I agree. I wonder if it will affect injuries. I hypothesize that it will decrease them overall. 

[Derwood]

how will a 3.7% decrease in games affect injuries in any meaningful way? Its one fewer game per month

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Derwood said:

how will a 3.7% decrease in games affect injuries in any meaningful way? Its one fewer game per month

Don't worry, your annual MLB.TV subscription will be 3.7% cheaper annually (not).

If they want to reduce injuries or have more rest they can bench regular players more or use a 6th SP once a month.

Since this would be against fan interests I'm not in favour of it anyways.  We would need something that benefits fans in return.

[Stratos]

On 11/8/2026 at 7:22 PM, Bertz said:

Shortening the season feels like it's at near the top of the list of most likely things to come out of the new CBA.  Only question is 154 or 156 IMO.  But a dedicated off day every week feels like something everyone wants.

Do we know why the owners would want this?  Doesn't make sense unless they want to add more playoff games, like making the Division Series best of 7, which would be nice to take out more of the playoff randomness.

[macarthur31]

20 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Do we know why the owners would want this?  Doesn't make sense unless they want to add more playoff games, like making the Division Series best of 7, which would be nice to take out more of the playoff randomness.

That's it - the proposal moves the Best of 5 to a Best of 7, which provides 8 more playoff games.  While, they could be losing many more regular season games (rough math: 30 teams x 8 games lost, divided by 2, right?) in comparison - perhaps that drives up the cost of the playoff media inventory?

All in all, of the things they have to "give" to the players in negotiation, I'd infer that for the Owners, losing these regular season games is the least painful for their concessions.

[mul21]

14 hours ago, Derwood said:

how will a 3.7% decrease in games affect injuries in any meaningful way? Its one fewer game per month

It builds in an extra rest day 4 out of 5 times through the rotation for starters and I have to imagine that would likely help with injuries a bit.  I would bet it helps position players numbers a decent amount too, especially guys who tend to fall off at the end of the season (Dansby) because they play so many games.

[Bertz]

More callously, I think you'd probably get the same/similar revenue by jacking up prices on remaining games to compensate but remove costs of gameday staff and operations from 3-4 games.

The rest, cleaning up of logistics, etc. makes the players and the FOs happy but for the owners that's just a cherry one top.

[CubinNY]

17 hours ago, Derwood said:

how will a 3.7% decrease in games affect injuries in any meaningful way? Its one fewer game per month

Consistency of schedule. No 14 games in 15 days, etc.

[Irrelevant Dude]

15 hours ago, Stratos said:

Don't worry, your annual MLB.TV subscription will be 3.7% cheaper annually (not).

And the Cubs will be sure to promote the fact that they aren't increasing STH ticket costs (ignoring the fact that there are fewer games).