The Next CBA (2027 and beyond)

[imref]

Jesse Rogers at ESPN reports that the owners are now proposing a $245.3 million salary cap AND a $171.2 million payroll floor starting in 2027. Existing contracts would likely be grandfathered in.

[Slateman]

Jesse Rogers at ESPN reports that the owners are now proposing a $245.3 million salary cap AND a $171.2 million payroll floor starting in 2027. Existing contracts would likely be grandfathered in.

Would love to know what the revenue sharing looks like. I don't know how much sway teams like the Dodgers and Yankees have, but if they can share money to make everyone give at least 171 million, then there really is no excuse for the current crappy payrolls.

Current payroll, not counting luxury tax, is 5 billion and change. Would be 5.13 billion. So, payroll, basically, stays the same.

[HalfSmokes]

Jesse Rogers at ESPN reports that the owners are now proposing a $245.3 million salary cap AND a $171.2 million payroll floor starting in 2027. Existing contracts would likely be grandfathered in.

Of course they are. Look at NBA valuations- a CBA with a hard cap sky rockets franchise value.

[Natsinpwc]

If they started with a floor like that there would be an immediate windfall for lower and mid tier free agents.  And fewer arbitration cases.  And the stars getting to free agency would be limited in what they could get.

[bluestreak]

I’ve always wondered about sports union dynamics. The unions always seem to be negotiating with the superstars in mind at the expense the mid and lower tier players who I would think are more numerous. And would also be more affected by a work stoppage.  Does everyone have an equal vote? Is this a case of everyone believing they will eventually be a superstar? It’s fascinating to me.

[HalfSmokes]

If they started with a floor like that there would be an immediate windfall for lower and mid tier free agents.  And fewer arbitration cases.  And the stars getting to free agency would be limited in what they could get.

Or stars would be more dispersed and the middle would get crushed. That’s what happens in other leagues with salary caps

[rileyn]

I’ve always wondered about sports union dynamics. The unions always seem to be negotiating with the superstars in mind at the expense the mid and lower tier players who I would think are more numerous. And would also be more affected by a work stoppage.  Does everyone have an equal vote? Is this a case of everyone believing they will eventually be a superstar? It’s fascinating to me.

Exactly.

[Slateman]

The theory is that if superstars get paid more, then middle tier players will get paid more. Not sure if I buy that theory, but that is what they usually say. A rising tide lifts all boats.

However, we can make some comparisons:

2025 Free Agents
Max Fried, Corbin Burnes, and Blake Snell got 218, 210, and 182 milion (27, 35, 36 million AAV)
Willy Adames - 182 (26)
Alex Bregman - 120 (40 - Opted out)/175 (35 in 2026
Anthony Santander - 92 (18.5)
Sean Manaea & Nathan Eovaldi - 75 (25)
Tanner Scott - 66 (22)
Luis Severino - 67 (22)
Yusei Kikichi - 63 (21)
Christian Walker 60 (20)

2015 Free Agents
Max Scherzer - 210 million. Probably comprable to all three of the 2025 top pitchers. Not a lot has changed here.
Jon Lester - 155 (25 AAV) - I'd argue this an underpay, given that his comp is probably Max Fried
Pablo Sandoval - 5 years, 95 million (19). Honestly, the comp is probably Santander. Santander is a year older and doesn't play third base, but they both have fluky careers up until this point. Pay hasn't changed much.
Hanley Ramirez - 4/88. Closest comp is Walker, but Walker is older when he signs. Gets less money but honestly, probably gets more if you take into account age. Walker is probably an increase on the salary side
James SHield - 4/75 He's probably a 3 at this point in his career. He's getting the same money as Eovaldi and Manea now, just over 4 years. Doesn't seem like much of an increase in salaries to me.
Ervin Santana - 4/55 If he were a free agent today, he'd get significantly more money than this.


Dunno, seems like there really isn't a definitive answer on this. It doesn't seem like pay has gone up much, but we do notice some trends, particularly on pitching, where the middle ground free agent is getting more money.

[Natsinpwc]

Sure but if the floor forces several teams to pay more it will force some pressure from the bottom also

[Slateman]

Half the teams in MLB are currently under the proposed floor. In total, they are 829 million below the current floor. The teams that are paying the luxury tax this year are, in total, paying over a billion payroll and taxes over a theoretical cap of 245 million

So basically, this saves the rich money, even if they have to revenue share to get the bottom half of the league up to the floor.  So yea, this is a huge windfall for the owners. The value of their investment will go up substantially and the rich teams will save money on payroll.

[tomterp]

Half the teams in MLB are currently under the proposed floor. In total, they are 829 million below the current floor. The teams that are paying the luxury tax this year are, in total, paying over a billion payroll and taxes over a theoretical cap of 245 million

So basically, this saves the rich money, even if they have to revenue share to get the bottom half of the league up to the floor.  So yea, this is a huge windfall for the owners. The value of their investment will go up substantially and the rich teams will save money on payroll.

So the unders pay $829 (at least) more, the overs cut $1B, not too far away as a negotiating starting point if the players seek to keep the pie from shrinking. 

Back to Bluestreak's point, it's never really made sense to me to have a handful of massively compensated players and a whole lot more making modest income, would be better (from a Union perspective) to redistribute that more broadly among the member base.

[HalfSmokes]

So the unders pay $829 (at least) more, the overs cut $1B, not too far away as a negotiating starting point if the players seek to keep the pie from shrinking. 

Back to Bluestreak's point, it's never really made sense to me to have a handful of massively compensated players and a whole lot more making modest income, would be better (from a Union perspective) to redistribute that more broadly among the member base.

Right now, the proposal is a small net increase in total payroll that will probably be a net loss by the end of the CBA. I heard a labor lawyer talking about the NFL CBA as an example and they pointed out that future fights will always be over a lesser percentage of total revenue (the cap still goes up because revenue goes up). I don’t see how the union agrees especially since the upcoming TV rights give them a ton of leverage vs. a typical lockout. I guess the owners can decide to just torpedo the sport, but right now, interest and rating are up (it probably helps to have a villain in a huge market); do the owners really want to throw that all away?

[HalfSmokes]

So the unders pay $829 (at least) more, the overs cut $1B, not too far away as a negotiating starting point if the players seek to keep the pie from shrinking. 

Back to Bluestreak's point, it's never really made sense to me to have a handful of massively compensated players and a whole lot more making modest income, would be better (from a Union perspective) to redistribute that more broadly among the member base.

A cap will exacerbate the contract inequality. Teams will rather pay for top end talent and fill with young guys and cheap vets than pay mid tier guys. Look at the NFL- the most important position take the vast majority of the cap and teams would rather a rookie than an ok vet at a higher price for a non-premium position. The NBA is almost the same way except the max salary serves to at least cap the amount of the cap going to individuals. Still, it’s the non-elite veterans who get squeezed

[nfotiu]

So the unders pay $829 (at least) more, the overs cut $1B, not too far away as a negotiating starting point if the players seek to keep the pie from shrinking. 

Back to Bluestreak's point, it's never really made sense to me to have a handful of massively compensated players and a whole lot more making modest income, would be better (from a Union perspective) to redistribute that more broadly among the member base.

I also agree it doesn't make much sense.  I've always assumed that it was the agents driving the conversations, and players mostly just buy into what they are saying.  I'm sure Boras is pretty influential in these discussions.

[Slateman]

So the unders pay $829 (at least) more, the overs cut $1B, not too far away as a negotiating starting point if the players seek to keep the pie from shrinking. 

Back to Bluestreak's point, it's never really made sense to me to have a handful of massively compensated players and a whole lot more making modest income, would be better (from a Union perspective) to redistribute that more broadly among the member base.

the players should be seeking to grow the pie. That's really the point of the cap. It puts a glass ceiling on the amout of the pie the players can get, all while baseball revenues and team values increase.

[tomterp]

A cap will exacerbate the contract inequality. Teams will rather pay for top end talent and fill with young guys and cheap vets than pay mid tier guys. Look at the NFL- the most important position take the vast majority of the cap and teams would rather a rookie than an ok vet at a higher price for a non-premium position. The NBA is almost the same way except the max salary serves to at least cap the amount of the cap going to individuals. Still, it’s the non-elite veterans who get squeezed

They should only do that if it increases wins.  If winning the competition for mid-tier guys gets you a better record, that's where it would settle out.  Plus you aren't competing for your whole roster, you still have your drafting and player development going on.

[tomterp]

the players should be seeking to grow the pie. That's really the point of the cap. It puts a glass ceiling on the amout of the pie the players can get, all while baseball revenues and team values increase.

What good is a bigger pie if it goes to 10% of the players only?  Or whatever %.  If I'm in the 90% why should I be concerned about maximizing the 10% if I'm not benefited?

[HalfSmokes]

the players should be seeking to grow the pie. That's really the point of the cap. It puts a glass ceiling on the amout of the pie the players can get, all while baseball revenues and team values increase.

Players don’t get anything when a franchise sells. The franchises are growing in value because the cost of labor is artificially restricted

[HalfSmokes]

What good is a bigger pie if it goes to 10% of the players only?  Or whatever %.  If I'm in the 90% why should I be concerned about maximizing the 10% if I'm not benefited?

Look at other leagues with caps. The best players take massive portions of it. Even in the NBA with max salaries, the second apron is depressing salaries for non-elite free agents

[Natsinpwc]

Look at other leagues with caps. The best players take massive portions of it. Even in the NBA with max salaries, the second apron is depressing salaries for non-elite free agents

But what’s happened with the median and mean salary and also the minimum salary.  Haven’t they more than kept pace in the NBA?

And also when revenues go up the floor and cap go up also. I think the NHL cap is going up like a total of about 25 percent over the next three years.

[HalfSmokes]

But what’s happened with the median and mean salary and also the minimum salary.  Haven’t they more than kept pace in the NBA?

And also when revenues go up the floor and cap go up also. I think the NHL cap is going up like a total of about 25 percent over the next three years.

The mean salary has to keep up- it’s basically the decimation of a cap. I think the median, especially with harder caps is probably less than it would have been without caps, but every sport is so unique, it’s probably impossible to prove either way

[nfotiu]

I'm not smart enough to unpack all this Guggenheim mess.   But it sure seems like a shady house of cards that may be falling apart.  They have this ownership mess, a tv deal half owned by Guggenheim that pays the Dodgers over 300 million on probably 100ish million in revenue, only 100 million of their TV deal is subject to revenue sharing as part of the old coming out of bankruptcy plan, they have the somewhat shady Ohtani deferred deal, and are still buying every player they can.

If it does all come undone, it could really disrupt the CBA bargaining.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/08/14/report-mark-walter-pledged-his-guggenheim-stake-to-secure-billions-in-loans/

[HalfSmokes]

He just netted $2 billion from the Lakers sale.

[nfotiu]

He just netted $2 billion from the Lakers sale.

It sounds like that is not nearly enough though.

[HalfSmokes]

It sounds like that is not nearly enough though.

I guess it depends on how bad it is. If Guggenheim goes under, that isn’t a great sign.