Ongoing CBA negotiations

[smg58]

A big part of the problem is that it is common knowledge what players get paid -- and oh boy, do they get paid -- but what the teams take in is not common knowledge. 

So if the last agreement expires, and the owners impose a work stoppage, at what point is the non-disclosure agreement for the teams' books no longer in effect?  That would be a ticking time bomb that gives the players some leverage.  That, and nobody likes billionaires right now.

And while the Angels are a big-market team, the fact that a perennial non-contender just got purchased for $4 billion should tell people something about the value that teams have.  

[Gwreck]

1 minute ago, smg58 said:

And while the Angels are a big-market team, the fact that a perennial non-contender just got purchased for $4 billion should tell people something about the value that teams have.  

Not only the $4B number but also that it’s been less than 6 years since Cohen purchased the Mets for half that amount.  Franchise values are tremendous and continually going up.

[Edgy MD]

A big part of that is because of the artificial scarcity in the marketplace caused by letting MLB operate as a cartel.

If I can't buy a Major League baseball team, I can't just start a club without permission from the other clubs.  I have to wait a generation for one to come on the market.  If I'm particular about which one I want, I will likely have to wait a few generations, and even then, I need permission from the other clubs to buy in.

Part of the reason we have this malicious disaster of a presidency is because nobody would let the guy buy an NFL football team like he really wanted.

So, yeah, an attractive, ego-boosting commodity controlled by artificial scarcity is going to lead to spiking prices.  And whether or not those purchases are profitable as enterprises, they remain a good investment because of those ever-increasing values lead to real equity pouring into your life.

It's sort of like the alpaca business on a large scale.

[Gwreck]

Jeff Passan reports that MLB included three interesting things in a recent proposal to the Union:

1. Shortening regular season from 162 to 154 games

2. Expanding division series from 5 to 7 games

3. Better seeds in playoffs get to pick their opponent.

[Edgy MD]

Weird.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I've seen #3 floated as a possibility. It's weird, but certainly not as weird as the ghost runner. I don't love the idea of shortening the regular season, but it's not nearly as bad as some of the other recent changes.

[metirish]

#3 is awful in my opinion 

[Gwreck]

Yeah, I probably need to give all of those some serious thought as to whether they’re good or bad.

-Shortening the regular season by 8 games:  practically means 8 fewer division games.  Instead of playing two division opponents 12 times and two division opponents 13 times, it’s 11 and 12.  Maybe has some small benefits to player health.

-7 game division series: seems like (before looking at any data) that it might reduce upsets.

-“Pick your opponent:”  very intriguing.  Consider 2024, the last year the Mets were in.  The Dodgers and Phillies are the top division winners, they get byes.

The Brewers, the #3 seed, get to pick their opponent among the three wild card teams.  Rather than getting the Mets, who fell to the #6 seed because of a tiebreak, the Brewers instead would likely select the Braves who everyone suspects (correctly) are without the injured Chris Sale.  The Mets travel to San Diego instead.

In the division round, the top-seeded Dodgers have their choice of (1) the Phillies, who also have been sitting around with a bye*; (2) the upstart Mets featuring  Pete Alonso who just hit a dramatic homer off Padres closer Robert Suarez, or (3) the Brewers, who easily dispatched the Braves.  I’m guessing the Dodgers would have taken the Mets there.
 

*Obviously we don’t have details of the proposal but one suspects the #1 seed might not be allowed to pick the #2 seed thus depriving #2 of home-field in the division series.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I don't see the owners giving up four home games each. 

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wouldn't think so either, but it's their proposal.

[Edgy MD]

16 hours ago, Marshmallowmilkshake said:

I don't see the owners giving up four home games each. 

For most teams, even many contenders, the games they lose will presumably be low-return playing-out-the-string games, and it makes room for another level of playoffs/longer playoff serieses, which is a pot everybody gets to share in.

It's further diminishment of the regular season in deference to the post season, and further assault on the idea of baseball as a sixth-month round-robin tournament in deference to the idea of baseball as a two-month elimination tournament, and therefore I am ag'in' it.

To the extent that they are offering most of the union ten days less labor, they will be asking a LOT in concessions, and the concessions they will ask will mostly be of the nature of MLB players throwing minor-league and amateur players overboard.

Owners and union win.  Fans and unempowered players lose.

[ashie62]

I like 154 games to let the schedule breathe some

[Edgy MD]

The schedule will almost certainly do less breathing and more contracting.  It'll be just less baseball.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

The game they want to eliminate is Mondays which is a poor drawing day generally. It would open that day for a national showcase game, which is what MLB wants (especially with all their TV contracts up after 2028). And making remaining games a little more scarce opens up dynamic pricing $$$$ opportunities. Plus more postseason is what the broadcasters want.

[Edgy MD]

Well, that would be breathin'.  Bad perception by me.

I suspectorize that it would also inevitably lead to six-man rotations and pitchers getting assigned to the same day each week.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I also assumed that the 154 games would be played over the span of time normally allotted to 154 games, thereby offering no breathing room in the regular season. But I suppose if they're subtracting eight games from the regular season and adding only two to the postseason, that would allow for an extra six days off.

[Benjamin Grimm]

34 minutes ago, Edgy MD said:

I suspectorize that it would also inevitably lead to six-man rotations and pitchers getting assigned to the same day each week.

This reminds me of how much Dwight Gooden loved pitching on Fridays. He could have made virtually all of his starts on Fridays under that plan.

[Fman99]

I don't like epxanding the LDS to 7 games.  I think it's more compelling as a best of three, then five, then seven as the rounds progress.  Suspense builds.

[Centerfield]

The answer is keep 162 and go back to one wild card. But owners will never allow that. 
 

Or go back to two WC. They play Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, with the DS starting Thursday. Fewer off days within the postseason to better replicate the regular season. 

[Gwreck]

I hate expanded playoffs but also realize that dam was broken and can’t be replaced.

What I would do is:

#6 plays at #5.  1 game.  Loser eliminated.

#5 plays at #4.  2 games, but #5 has to win 2.  #4 has to only win 1.

#1 seed plays the winner of the WC play-in, and #2/3 seeds play each other.

-Keeps it to 6 teams per league, keeps the WC round to 3 days.  Gives every division winner a bye.  Privileges the #4 Wild Card which almost always is as good as or better than one division winner (sometimes 2).  Makes both division championships and distinct wild card seeding matter.  

 

[Edgy MD]

MLB can also create a universal day off by:

1. Not expanding the playoffs.
2. Contracting the playoffs.  (I disagree that this can't be done.)
3. Scheduling doubleheaders.

Shortening the season would bollux up so much of the filter through which we understand baseball and through which baseball is expressed.  I realize MLB cares less about this than I do, but they reliably miss the full picture.

[Centerfield]

Even within the playoffs. They can eliminate many of the off days to make it better mirror the regular season. 

[Benjamin Grimm]

I would like that. It would test the depth of the teams' starting rotations. (And bullpen too.) You'd see fewer examples of starters in the bullpen and things like that. Let the teams try to win in the postseason the way they won in the regular season.

[Frayed Knot]

On 10/8/2026 at 4:26 PM, Marshmallowmilkshake said:

I don't see the owners giving up four home games each. 

Quote

I wouldn't think so either, but it's their proposal.

Keep in mind that all these proposals from the owners are an enticement for the players to accept a salary cap. Do they WANT to give up four home games? No, but for a salary cap they'd do it in a heartbeat.