Quote from Randy Manese on June 23, 2026, 7:59 am

I don't know if I'm in the minority or the mainstream but I'd like to see a salary cap and a salary floor as one of the ways to try to bring competitive balance to baseball.  If you look at the projected luxury tax payrolls for the year, the expected big money teams are far and away buying their way to pennants.  What I'd propose is to take the numbers for the top 10 to get an approximate cap of 295MM and take the bottom 20 and get a salary floor of approximately 165MM.  If you do this, you'll still have the top 5 big spenders highlighted by the Dodgers and the New York teams, followed by 13 teams in the middle group and 12 teams who currently spend below 165MM.  That pushes more teams to compete for free agents or hang onto developing super stars instead of being a farm team to those teams with money.  This has many ties to CBT, revenue sharing, etc.

Another way to help the competitive balance is to scrub the international free agency farce and have an international draft.  Currently, this has to be the most corrupt system in baseball with team representatives descending on families and children who may not even be in their teens and trying to get an early commitment to sign when they come of age.  I would use a pure lottery system vice a weighted lottery system for each round of the draft of maybe 15-20 rounds.  Typically, major league teams sign between 20-40 players during the international signing period so in this format it emphasizes player evaluation and development and not whatever money over or under the table is going on.  I would not, however, place an age limit of 18 years on those players eligible for the international draft - this draft format would still be beneficial to families in countries where many struggle to escape poverty and baseball is their way out of that economic down cycle.

Finally, I like the idea of expansion and realignment.  That might be the owners biggest chip to play to get the concessions they feel are most important to them.

My hope is that these negotiations do not drag on and on and we lose a significant percentage of the season (say 10-20%).  For the Padres, I think new ownership and new revenue streams will help keep us competitive in 2027 and beyond.

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 23, 2026, 9:45 am

I agree with all of this.

But what are the "new revenue streams" you speak of that the new owners will have going forward?

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 23, 2026, 11:12 am

Think (Not sure) the Athletic did a surgery of FANS and 70% wanted a salary cap / floor although only about 35% wanted a "hard cap" vs a "soft cap" ... but guessing few understood what a soft cap would look like.

In one article I saw the owners were suggesting a floor in the $150MM range BUT that was a similar calculation to the current CBT and included "pension and benefits" and a few other things. Union wanted that level but salaries only. So maybe some negotiation room if the owners are really on board. The cap was proposed in the $300MM range (but the union does not want the cap).

One way they could skirt the age minimum in an international draft is for MLB to run an "academy" for prospects younger than 18 ... maybe schooling and a stipend. Similar to now ... not really that many international prospects get the big money ... so a "short draft" (like being proposed for the domestic draft) would work and the just sign the others as FA with a "cap" on bonus (like $10K). Given the usual pushback from the international community ... this may be a long shot with really no benefit for the MLBPA.

Since there is little incentive to agree early ... probably more "serious" negotiations ramp up around ST ... til then just vague proposals and taking shots at the other side.

Quote from Jeremy Hill on June 24, 2026, 9:00 am

I know these early proposals are meaningless. I still wonder what the league is thinking by putting out this new draft proposal. They're trying to outsource player development to colleges they have no affiliation with and who have no real interest in the player's future. Every year we watch college coaches abuse kids arms in tournaments at the end of the season. They're also sending the message that they would rather see potential superstar level players play in college or the minor leagues rather than the majors. If guys aren't draft eligible until after their sophomore year of college the youngest you're likely to see anyone debut is 21. Think of all of the elite players that have come up before that. Add in the reduced rounds and greatly reduced draft budget and it's hard not to see it as penny pinching greed from the owners.

I'm all for an international draft. However, the league is so unserious that they proposed fully skipping the international draft 1 year in their proposal. It only calls for an international draft in 6 out of the 7 years it would cover.

I can get behind the idea of a salary floor and cap. The floor would need to be significant though. From what I understand between revenue sharing and national deals every team is taking in over 200m regardless of their own success in running a franchise. To me a floor should at least start in the neighborhood of that amount.

Quote from fenn68 on June 24, 2026, 11:28 am

Pretty clear that the owners want to save money ... but that could be considered greedy or could spin it to be being "efficient" and reducing risk to better focus the monies on more proven talent (or used to pay more to the ML players).

As the current system works ... a lot of money is funneled to HS players that just never develop in part because they have limited exposure to top line competition (so all projection) before being drafted and the leverage game of going to college to boost their bonus. Giving HS kid two more years of development against more consistent better competition just becomes a filtering process to allow the better prospects to rise. (side the "better" HS prospects will have "advisors" that direct them to colleges (coaches) that will do the best for their professional ambitions ... any college coach that does not handle their players well will just not get the top HS prospects (and therefore ultimately get fired).

So less risk of a bad pick for the club and money going to the more deserving prospect. Plus the 12 round approach realistically does not hurt any player trying to sign professionally ... actually the players have more opportunity to sign as a NDFA in an organization that may fit them better (realistically very very few picks in rounds 13-20 make an impact in the ML).

So less money spent but what is spent is on the more deserving prospects? What about the reduced spending ... if the MLBPA sees that savings being funneled to their slice of the pie (e.g. increased league minimum salaries), they too may like the idea.

If you believe the "good" prospects will be "good" in two years and still get drafted ... plus make the real money when they make the ML ... the only ones to get "hurt" are over-rated HS prospects.

Not sure how ML will trim a minor league level. With drafting college types ... maybe the entry level is low A with the international players placed in the DSL. Drop the complex leagues (ACL)? Alternatively drop low A and keep the Complex leagues (better environment to work on skills than a league play?). I guess dropping low A would save more money (travel, stipends) plus would allow for further reduction of "fringe" minor league players who just exist to fill out rosters (not really prospects).

So, not against the idea. A lot depends on how the "savings" get redeployed. Highest best use of the funds benefiting the more deserving with less risk of bad signings ... seems justifiable.

 

Quote from Jeremy Hill on June 25, 2026, 2:42 pm

Details are coming out about another new league proposal. The biggest change is a proposed limiting of free agent contracts to 5 years and 15% of the cap for players who change teams or 6 years for those who stay with their team. No way the players go for that.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/49178178/mlb-wants-maximum-5-year-deals-free-agents-changing-teams

Quote from fenn68 on June 25, 2026, 5:35 pm

Quote from Jeremy Hill on June 25, 2026, 2:42 pm

Details are coming out about another new league proposal. The biggest change is a proposed limiting of free agent contracts to 5 years and 15% of the cap for players who change teams or 6 years for those who stay with their team. No way the players go for that.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/49178178/mlb-wants-maximum-5-year-deals-free-agents-changing-teams

Agree but the owners are also tried to offset that a bit with an offer of initial FA after 5 years (for 30 year olds and older) ... down from 6 years. Plus ... just a maybe guess ... that 15% rises with the Salary Cap rising ... basically the contract becomes 15% of that year's salary cap.

A lot then depends on the salary cap level. IF $300MM we are talking a max pay of $45MM annually ... how many players are over that? By how much? then balance that against the increased money to the new 5 year FA (money a year earlier) ... do they offset and one player's benefit is another player's loss. Union of course will not like the 5/6 year max deals .... but again how may deals are longer?

Also believe the owners are willing to drop the qualifying offer on FA making it easier for teams to make offers to players and presumably offer more money. Also, if they include a salary floor ... that should also funnel more to the players. Could argue upping the floor puts more team bidding for players and teams more interested will have to pay more just to get their rosters filled ... all in all more money to players (the masses) vs the few at the top.

Have to see the real numbers of course but possible the owner's offer actually gets more money to the bulk of the players by shaving a bit off the elite. Whether the net of all this is more or less to the players ... TBD ... but clearly would result in a redistribution.

Also, proposing the elimination of deferred money contract (somehow).