It was the SFA baseball team, who were in town for the conference tournament, who started that. ...and then it took off https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48788890/cardinals-marmol-endorses-shirtless-fan-trend-walk-off https://www.mlb.com/news/tarps-off-shirtless-fans-at-busch-stadium-have-energized-cardinals
No timetable, no ideas, nobody knows. https://www.mlb.com/astros/news/jose-altuve-continue-rehab-oblique-injury-astros-florida-complex In Yordan news, it's good: Astros slugger Yordan Alvarez is scheduled for his first day off this season on Sunday against the Cubs, which will come in Houston’s 54th game -- the one-third mark on the schedule. Alvarez has started every game so far and was pulled from Saturday’s 3-0 win at Wrigley Field during an at-bat in the sixth inning with a back spasm. The move was precautionary for Alvarez, who has already played in five more games than he did in the entire 2025 season. Alvarez said he felt a back spasm earlier in the day and suffered another while lifting weights prior to his at-bat in the sixth inning. “The right scapula felt a little tight, and I really couldn’t raise my right arm a whole lot,” he said. Alvarez was trying to stretch his back while standing at the on-deck circle before his at-bat to lead off the sixth, prompting a visit from manager Joe Espada and an athletic trainer. Alvarez began the at-bat and looked uncomfortable after fouling off an 0-1 pitch. The Astros took no more chances and pulled him from the game. “Unfortunately, it was my turn to bat, and I didn’t give [the spasm] time to go away,” he said.
MLBPA submitted their opening CBA proposal. Highlights: A tax on teams that have low payrolls Increase in min salary to $1.5M Earlier salary arbitration eligibility and higher arbitration salaries Players over 30 reach free agency after 5 years instead of 6 No more Qualifying Offers and associated penalties Draft picks for teams that lose free agents Increased CBT threshold Expanded draft lottery Rules to combat service time manipulation I like most of those. I don’t think they need to expand the draft lottery. But otherwise I don’t have an issue with any of those points. None of it really matters much because the only point that will matter is if the owners demand a hard salary cap. That’s the only thing that will determine if there’s lost games in 2027. Me personally, I want to see: Free agency based on age, not service time. If you’re a HS draftee or an amateur int’l signee, you get free agency at 28. Otherwise it’s 30. That eliminates service time manipulation and the confusing PPI nonsense. Also does away with the need for a Rule 5 draft. An international draft Go back to the old Type A/B free agent compensation system instead of the QO system. No penalties for teams signing free agents. Base the ability to option a player to the minors on age. Players 28 or younger can be optioned. Players over 28 can elect free agency if DFA. This would reduce or eliminate all the craziness with guys bouncing around on waivers to 5 different teams in a month because they’re out of options. I also think it would reduce pitcher injuries by allowing teams to rotate in more fresh arms. Minimum payroll of $120M. Increase in league minimum to $1.5M/yr. All players on the 40 man roster earn big league salary even if in the minors. The top 3 teams in payroll each season lose their 1st round pick in the next draft (both US and international). If a team has a top 3 payroll for 3 consecutive years they lose their entire draft in the next year. Arbitration starting at age 26. A player’s arbitration salary starts at 25% of expected equivalent free agent AAV and cannot increase >50% year over year.
If the owners aren’t dead set on a hard cap, they probably are. None of those proposals from MLBPA are all that unreasonable. Of course the owners wouldn’t just give them all of it but none of those things are likely to be non-negotiable and none of them are as significant as a hard cap. Bottom line: if the owners are dead set on a cap, we are looking at a lockout and very very likely to lose games; if the owners aren’t dead set on a cap, there might be a lockout but I consider it extremely unlikely there would be lost games.
The biggest issue, IMO is that the owners are likely not united either. They must vote on each proposal and it only takes 8 owners to prevent agreement. If 8 owners are dead set on a hard cap, even if the other 22 are willing to compromise there will be a very long negotiation. The hope is that the teams that are likely to want a cap are also the ones that can't afford to lose games. And IMO the players will let the league die before agreeing to investment. They may not think of it that way but it feels like they will fight a very long time on that hill and the game will eventually lose fans, sponsors, and support. Its potentially way worse than 1994 because the world has so many other legitimate options for entertainment and investments. And due to short attention spans, the game is starting from a lesser point to begin with.
https://www.cbs17.com/sports/ap-mlb...irst-time-since-baseballs-1994-95-strike/amp/ Owners respond with their proposal that has a $245M cap and a $171M floor. Apparently their proposal includes teams sharing all media revenue equally. That is a very high salary floor; half the teams in the league are below that and 9 teams are <$130M. 8 teams are over the cap. We’ll see how dug in each side is on the issue of a hard cap. As it relates to the Astros I think this would favor them. Their 2nd/3rd tier contracts (Walker, Correa, Javier, Hader) would be bargains compared to what those level of players would get if teams suddenly had to get to $170M. The cap is also just above where the Astros sit, so they wouldn’t have to make major roster changes just to get under the cap. Unless there’s some kind of exemption for existing contracts, the Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, and Phillies would be scrambling to shed payroll to get under the cap. Anyway, there is a very wide gap between a $245M hard cap and a $300M+ CBT threshold. Just based on their initial offers, I would expect to see lost games in 2027 if not a lost season. My total guess as to where it ends up is that they establish a hard floor (~$130M) but not a hard cap, but that the new penalties for exceeding the CBT (~$290M) are so punitive (loss of multiple draft picks plus tax of multiple times the overage) such that no team would ever go over them.
The owner's proposal seems generous on first reading. The $171m floor is very high! The amount low spending teams would have to spend to get to the floor seems like it would far exceed the amount that high-spenders are above the proposed $245m cap. There would be a real spending spree in 2027 by teams like the Rays, Pirates, Marlins, Athletics etc. I don't think the league agrees to any sort of floor (which the union wants) without a cap. The floor is the carrot to incentivize the union to accept. They seem to go hand in hand.
The ESPN article has a little more details, and this quote struck me: “The proposal includes a 50/50 split of league revenues with the players. As those increase, the salary floor and cap would also increase. Additionally, the league is proposing a centralized fund for all local media revenues with money distributed equally among the 30 teams.” Basically the league is proposing a revenue 50/50 split with the players such that the floor/cap would adjust to meet it. That seems like a pretty good deal for the players. Now, what the league actually counts in that revenue number might change the dynamic.
Not to mention, that high of a floor would drastically overpay players that are not worthy (making that player virtually untradable) Teams like the Pirates would just be stuck with marginal talent at a higher cost with many players being on short term 1 year contracts. I like the floor idea but it should be closer to $125 mil to start.
I would be curious what % of $$ the players currently have been averaging out the last several years. That seems to me the key to all of this. If the players are at 40-45% now, they should jump at working within this system. If they are at 55%+, they should laugh at it. Long-term, though, the % of revenue is is how every league thrives and calms the waters between players and owners - it aligns everyone's interests together.
Realistically, top teams like the Dodgers can't get under the cap that quickly either without having to make poor decisions. So if they were to go to a cap/floor system, it likely gets phased in over several years.
