The Next CBA (2027 and beyond)

[Slateman]

Would make college baseball way more palatable to watch

[nobleisthyname]

I thought saw this on Federal Baseball. Msy have been quoting the article.

Yes, the Nats are a problem. What's particularly galling and odd is they are a revenue sharing payers, so the minimal spending grievance doesn't apply to them. That's forced the As and the Pirates to spend a bit

I think there's a strong argument that the Nats ownership is the cheapest in the sport once you weight for market size. They're already like 3rd or 4th cheapest in absolute terms.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

They’re represented by the MLBPA.

in the past, minors played during strikes, but maybe that was before the mlbpa represented the players. IIRC in 1994 going to Frederick with my brother and his kids when they had come down for a Sox-Os game in OPACY

[blue911]

in the past, minors played during strikes, but maybe that was before the mlbpa represented the players. IIRC in 1994 going to Frederick with my brother and his kids when they had come down for a Sox-Os game in OPACY

If there is a lockout,it’ll be the first time with the MLBPA representing all players.

[HalfSmokes]

Do milb players get a vote on the CBA? Seems like an issue if they don’t while being represented by the union

[varoadking]

Do milb players get a vote on the CBA? Seems like an issue if they don’t while being represented by the union

I think each team has 1 voting member...

[imref]

so which teams are the real problem here?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

so which teams are the real problem here?

and that's why  John Henry is reviled for becoming cheap in Boston. For a while, it  was thought he was syphoning Red Sox earnings to subsidize Liverpool, but I don't track whether Liverpool is still spending. Very interesting to see the Cubs well below the Nats and Red Sox in terms of % of revenues spent among the revenue sharing payers.

[varoadking]

and that's why  John Henry is reviled for becoming cheap in Boston. For a while, it  was thought he was syphoning Red Sox earnings to subsidize Liverpool, but I don't track whether Liverpool is still spending. Very interesting to see the Cubs well below the Nats and Red Sox in terms of % of revenues spent among the revenue sharing payers.

The Sawx payroll + tax number doesn't add up on this chart...by like $90MM...

That would make for a substantial change to the total dollars if the payroll + tax numbers are correct as shown...

EDIT:  NEVERMIND...

[imref]

Did you read $91K as $91M?

[varoadking]

Did you read $91K as $91M?

Son of a gun...I sure did...

Thanks...

[English Natsie]

His Masters Voice...

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-payroll-disparity

[nfotiu]

I don't think any of the teams like the Dodgers at this point.   They have a ridiculous 300 million/year TV deal that seems to somehow seems to continue on even though it is probably losing 200 million/year.   All the other teams are seeing their local TV rights vanish or sharply decline.   The Dodgers TV deal is capped at something like 100 million for revenue sharing purposes as part of the deal of them coming out of bankruptcy.   They are playing on a different playing field than everyone else.

Cohen seems happy to throw money away on his hobby, but still doesn't help them win.

I think the Blue Jays probably make way more money than it states here.   They get a million viewers per game and they are owned by their TV network, so it's fuzzy math.

Something does need to be done about the teams constantly under 40%.   They are just collecting revenue sharing welfare.

I wonder if the Cubs really make that much money.    I don't think the Marquee sports network is making much money for them, and doesn't have much of a future.

[imref]

lots of chatter this morning from Passan and others that small market teams are willing to kill the league unless they get a salary cap on the belief that mlb is unsustainable without one.

Passan: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47620464/mlb-2026-kyle-tucker-los-angeles-dodgers-free-agency-labor-cba-offseason

MLB Live reports:

As I've reported for the past few months - a source close to a few owners have told me - people are thinking about 2026 - owners are privately discussing no 2027 and what that could mean for the sport.

Owners of small market teams view this as survival - and there's a belief within some owner circles that what's happening now will kill the sport more so then any lockout will - and they won't open up until their is a cap.

One owner according to my source - said to hell with the whole league then - if these guys want to lose 2-3 years of their career then I guess we will see - there's no point in going forward under this system-

And that's a look into how they view this - they view the entire league and its future and the health of each franchise - big or small market - dependent on a salary cap - and some owner do not see MLB surviving without one -

Yes - you heard that right - there are owners that do not see MLB SURVIVING - without one.

Free agency - small market teams and the imbalance that has plagued the league- The Dodgers are in fact - killing baseball.

Seems that this will be as much a battle between big and small market teams as it will be between ownership and players. Is there any scenario though where the players accept a hard cap?

[nobleisthyname]

Any cap comes with a floor and I don't see players accepting a floor that just maintains the status quo. Will the Guardians still be in favor of a cap if it means they are forced to spend $150M each season?

[Natsinpwc]

lots of chatter this morning from Passan and others that small market teams are willing to kill the league unless they get a salary cap on the belief that mlb is unsustainable without one.

Passan: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47620464/mlb-2026-kyle-tucker-los-angeles-dodgers-free-agency-labor-cba-offseason

MLB Live reports:
Seems that this will be as much a battle between big and small market teams as it will be between ownership and players. Is there any scenario though where the players accept a hard cap?

Well probably in the end there will be a harder cap but like the NHL or NFL. Harsher penalties. A salary floor would help the players accept. I think there is some posturing here from the smaller market owners. They are making money now.  Do they really want to give that up?

[HalfSmokes]

Any cap comes with a floor and I don't see players accepting a floor that just maintains the status quo. Will the Guardians still be in favor of a cap if it means they are forced to spend $150M each season?

This is where I see it falling apart. You’re taking away massive luxury tax payments and doubling the salary - can small market teams even afford it

[Natsinpwc]

In the end they will work something out.  Everyone is making money now. It’s just a matter of how long a lockout lasts. 

[IanRubbish]

Will the Guardians still be in favor of a cap if it means they are forced to spend $150M each season?

The Lerners would protest more than the Guardians would.