MLB's New Salary Cap Proposal Could Make Looming Lockout Even More Complicated

[Matthew Nethercott]

Major League Baseball’s offseason is now underway, and we are less than a month from baseball’s doomsday. On December 1st, MLB’s CBA will expire, and a long winter, and possibly spring, of labor fighting will begin. Tuesday, the owners released a new proposal for a salary cap/floor system that sent baseball fans into a frenzy.

About the new proposal

According to Jeff Passan of ESPN, MLB would delay the implementation of a salary cap until the 2028 season; this way, teams can operate as needed this offseason to get players signed and keep the market moving. The cap would be raised from the initial $245.3 million to $258.2 million, and the floor would rise from $171.2 million to $180.2 million per season.

The road to free agency would also be reduced from six years to five, and the league minimum salary would rise from $780 thousand to $1 million per season. The proposal also notes that it would limit the number of times a player could be optioned to the minor leagues per season from five times to four. This would also eliminate the qualifying offer, which means teams would not be in jeopardy of losing draft picks for signing players. The weekly roster idea was also revisited, with the statement noting that teams would not be able to outright a player during a week they are on the roster.

Benefits and Drawbacks

One of the biggest benefits would be pre-arbitration players being paid more. If there were a salary cap/floor system, it would help boost the payrolls of the 12 teams that need to get theirs above the proposed mark. Lowering the number of years until free agency would also benefit players, as it might allow them to earn more money on free-agent deals. Eliminating the qualifying offer would also guarantee that players reach the open market, which is also a good thing.

The drawback remains the constant push for a salary cap/floor system. The players have yet to show interest in signing on to a salary cap, and I doubt the marginal increases in the cap/floor numbers will change this. Continuing to propose this is increasingly making it likely there will be a longer lockout this offseason. The proposals need to be realistic, and given the players' refusal to accept a cap/floor system, this is not realistic. 

These proposals are just getting started, and this labor war could get ugly before realistic items are proposed and items are resolved.

Image courtesy of Benny Sieu-Imagn Images

View full article

[srlarson]

Until they approve some kind of revenue share amongst teams.....any talk of a salary cap  is mute......they are going to mess up a pretty good thing.....Team values have gone nuts....nothing hurts more than shutting it all down.....see you in 2028.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, srlarson said:

Until they approve some kind of revenue share amongst teams.....any talk of a salary cap  is mute......they are going to mess up a pretty good thing.....Team values have gone nuts....nothing hurts more than shutting it all down.....see you in 2028.....

They won't shut down the 2027 season. There's too much money at stake. I expect owners will back down from the salary cap pretty quickly.

[killercarewoliva]

I am on a cell phone and Google. does the pronunciation can't get that to stop and it's pitiful?. okay I want to speak to the before free agency. how much do the fans that come to the games? want to see the players on the field change? do they want that every year have a whole new team? let's say it was 3 years instead of six and it says wanting to make it five. that brings more money to the free agents and more cost to go see a game and less of the players you're used to seeing good or bad. personally I think it should go up to 8 years. oh my, a guy has to stay with the same team 8 years. Tony Oliva stayed his whole career. Harmon killer boo spent his last season in Kansas City. I think he was right at 20 years with Minnesota and Washington franchise. Joe, mauer of course stayed when he could have left. from the replies I received on topics that include money, everybody wants the players to make a billion dollars everyday. slight exaggeration and they want to pay the money so they can do that. I find it absurd. A salary cap is desperately needed and a way to keep to players on their original team as long as possible needs to be done. to me. it's not even ethical to continue to go to the ball field and have to see different faces so often. the way it should be to see different faces is the teams make trades which is what the twins need to do to put a competitive team on the field. plus yes sign free agents if you can but if a guy couldn't be a free agent for 8 years that allows for trades as the general manager and whoever in the organization get to test their ability to gauge the ability of the baseball player rather than buy people. a championship done with your head is a whole lot more satisfying than one done with your pocketbook. Cleveland, Milwaukee and Tampa have learned how to do just a little bit of that. like the manager of Milwaukee said the dodgers have a bunch of Hall of famers and we have a bunch of gamers. Off-Season talk used to be on the player's ability and such. now it's on trades and free agents. there's almost no talk about the game itself anymore. the all-season those with the better teams spend their time thinking about the first game with the people that they know can win for them that are already there. The criticism I will get from this will be incredible but I don't even consider going to a ball game anymore in person. not going to give the money up to a game. let's say family of four $1,200 plus concession and parking just to see one game and for once be close to the field and not have to sit way in the back for $10 if that is available. I don't know the pricing with the twins. I know I have seen $300 when they put the camera across the stands behind home plate has less people. wonder why. any sport? a ball player is not a superstar. a superstar is the guy who did the operation to save your mama with a new heart for example.

[killercarewoliva]

Just now, killercarewoliva said:

I am on a cell phone and Google. does the pronunciation can't get that to stop and it's pitiful?. okay I want to speak to the before free agency. how much do the fans that come to the games? want to see the players on the field change? do they want that every year have a whole new team? let's say it was 3 years instead of six and it says wanting to make it five. that brings more money to the free agents and more cost to go see a game and less of the players you're used to seeing good or bad. personally I think it should go up to 8 years. oh my, a guy has to stay with the same team 8 years. Tony Oliva stayed his whole career. Harmon killer boo spent his last season in Kansas City. I think he was right at 20 years with Minnesota and Washington franchise. Joe, mauer of course stayed when he could have left. from the replies I received on topics that include money, everybody wants the players to make a billion dollars everyday. slight exaggeration and they want to pay the money so they can do that. I find it absurd. A salary cap is desperately needed and a way to keep to players on their original team as long as possible needs to be done. to me. it's not even ethical to continue to go to the ball field and have to see different faces so often. the way it should be to see different faces is the teams make trades which is what the twins need to do to put a competitive team on the field. plus yes sign free agents if you can but if a guy couldn't be a free agent for 8 years that allows for trades as the general manager and whoever in the organization get to test their ability to gauge the ability of the baseball player rather than buy people. a championship done with your head is a whole lot more satisfying than one done with your pocketbook. Cleveland, Milwaukee and Tampa have learned how to do just a little bit of that. like the manager of Milwaukee said the dodgers have a bunch of Hall of famers and we have a bunch of gamers. Off-Season talk used to be on the player's ability and such. now it's on trades and free agents. there's almost no talk about the game itself anymore. the all-season those with the better teams spend their time thinking about the first game with the people that they know can win for them that are already there. The criticism I will get from this will be incredible but I don't even consider going to a ball game anymore in person. not going to give the money up to a game. let's say family of four $1,200 plus concession and parking just to see one game and for once be close to the field and not have to sit way in the back for $10 if that is available. I don't know the pricing with the twins. I know I have seen $300 when they put the camera across the stands behind home plate has less people. wonder why. any sport? a ball player is not a superstar. a superstar is the guy who did the operation to save your mama with a new heart for example.

I had no worries knowing next year I'm going to see Harmon Killebrew and Tony Oliva with the twins and suddenly prices go through the roof and if I want to see Harmon and Tony I have to go see a different team. no I just won't go. the almighty dollar is the ruler at that point.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, srlarson said:

Until they approve some kind of revenue share amongst teams.....any talk of a salary cap  is mute......they are going to mess up a pretty good thing.....Team values have gone nuts....nothing hurts more than shutting it all down.....see you in 2028.....

There's no way a salary floor can happen without essentially full rev share. I would prefer an attendance based revenue sharing component, though. Teams like Tampa (or Minnesota) shouldn't be getting full revenue sharing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

There's no way a salary floor can happen without essentially full rev share. I would prefer an attendance based revenue sharing component, though. Teams like Tampa (or Minnesota) shouldn't be getting full revenue sharing.

100% agreed. I believe TV revenue should be close to a 50-50 split between the two teams playing, but gate revenue should be skewed more toward the home team.

[TNtwins85]

21 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

They won't shut down the 2027 season. There's too much money at stake. I expect owners will back down from the salary cap pretty quickly.

With the Unions response to the proposal a cap/ floor isn’t going to happen unless the league and owners are willing to endure the pain of lost money. I wouldn’t put it past them as they had to know this would be the response. If they can inflict enough pain now for a cap/floor system that guarantees them massive amounts of future money in their pockets they might be willing to lose now based on the proposals they’ve put out. Just as the players did in ‘94 if they believe in and want something implemented they’ll be willing to take it to the goal line no matter what. It’s a matter of where the line in the sand is that turns the fans on both the league and the union. I imagine they’ve mapped this out and if that means X number of games are lost before profits will drop to a certain point they’re willing to endure that might mean lost games. I don’t know what their formula is but I just don’t imagine that they expected the union to accept anything in the realm of what they’ve proposed. It’s a sticky situation as you know they seen this coming and I’m sure they prepared for what scenarios are coming. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

With the Unions response to the proposal a cap/ floor isn’t going to happen unless the league and owners are willing to endure the pain of lost money. I wouldn’t put it past them as they had to know this would be the response. If they can inflict enough pain now for a cap/floor system that guarantees them massive amounts of future money in their pockets they might be willing to lose now based on the proposals they’ve put out. Just as the players did in ‘94 if they believe in and want something implemented they’ll be willing to take it to the goal line no matter what. It’s a matter of where the line in the sand is that turns the fans on both the league and the union. I imagine they’ve mapped this out and if that means X number of games are lost before profits will drop to a certain point they’re willing to endure that might mean lost games. I don’t know what their formula is but I just don’t imagine that they expected the union to accept anything in the realm of what they’ve proposed. It’s a sticky situation as you know they seen this coming and I’m sure they prepared for what scenarios are coming. 

Baseball is trying to expand, and some owners are on the cusp of selling. They're not going to kneecap the sport for a decade over a salary cap, they're just not.

[TopGunn22]

In a negotiation, both sides get something they want, and both sides have to give something up they would rather not.  At some point, the Players Union is going to have to "give" on something.  The key is in "getting" something (maybe several "somethings") that makes what you eventually give up, worthwhile.

The owners are focused on a salary cap.  The players have always been 100% opposed.   There will be change going forward.  The Dodgers didn't win this year, but the current financial model needs a major revision.  What will that be?  TNtwins85 is right.  There is probably some kind of formula the owners are basing their negotiation strategy on.  I also have no idea what that is, but I think we ARE going to miss games, and there will be some sort of shortened Spring Training.  I can't get into the mind of the owners, so I have no idea how much this will effect the off season.