This winter has seen a lot of talk around the overlapping issues of competitive balance, a salary cap and player retention. Most of that talk is related to the Dodgers. That club spent heavily last winter on star players, including Shohei Ohtani, then went on to win the 2024 World Series. They followed that up by adding even more star power this winter, signing Blake Snell, Roki Sasaki and others. In the wake of the Sasaki signing, MLBTR polled its readers about a salary cap with roughly two thirds of the votes being in favor.

“No,” Manfred said, when asked if the Dodgers are ruining baseball. “I don’t agree with that. The Dodgers are a really well-run, successful organization. Everything that they do and have done is consistent with our rules. They’re trying to give their fans the best possible product.” However, he did make it clear he’s aware of the frustration coming from other fanbases. “I recognize, however, and my email certainly reflects it: There are fans in other markets who are concerned about their teams’ ability to compete, and we always have to be concerned when our fans are concerned about something. But pinning it on the Dodgers, not in that camp.”

As mentioned, the idea of competitive balance or parity has come up a lot in baseball circles lately. Those who believe baseball doesn’t have a parity problem will point to the fact that baseball has been fairly dynasty-proof lately. No club has won consecutive World Series since the 1998-2000 Yankees. The Dodgers, for all their might in the regular season, just won a title in a full season for the first time since 1988. Smaller clubs like the Rays, Guardians and Brewers have stayed steadily competitive in recent years.

There are various counter arguments. Per Shaikin, it was discussed at the owners’ meetings that only two clubs outside the top ten markets have managed to win a World Series in the past 20 years: the Cardinals and the Royals. The inability for lesser-spending clubs to retain star players is also a frequent bone of contention in certain fanbases. Mets president of baseball operations David Stearns, who formerly had the same job with the Brewers, addressed that issue with Mike Mazzeo of Sports Business Journal, vaguely supporting measures to improve player retention without specifics. That was another issue Manfred touched on today.

“Continuity in terms of players in particular markets is an issue that’s relevant to the marketing game,” he said. “Obviously, fans get attached to players, and that’s a great thing. We love that. That’s part of fandom, it’s a good part of fandom. We always try to keep the desire for player continuity in our minds when we’re talking about building a system. By the same token, I’m kind of a free market guy — players at some point in their careers, have to have a right to — I mean they have to — have a right to decide where they want to play.”

The hope of salary cap proponents is that it would help in many of these areas, the idea being that reining in clubs like the Dodgers would increase the chances of smaller clubs keeping fan favorites, as well as helping their prospects of winning on the field.

Getting a salary cap in place, however, would be another matter. It would have to be collectively bargained with the MLB Players Association and the union has long been opposed to a salary cap. The owners made a serious attempt to get a salary cap in place 30 years ago, which led to the 1994-95 strike, during which there was no World Series played for the ’94 season.

In a separate piece at The Athletic, Drellich writes that the owners have been discussing whether or not to push for a salary cap. The current collective bargaining agreement runs until December of 2026, so a cap could potentially come up in negotiations going into the 2027 season.

Whether the owners will be intent on pushing for a cap is a big unknown. Different clubs will naturally have different priorities for CBA talks, depending on their respective financial situations. A club like the Dodgers will be less interested in a salary cap than some of the lower-spending clubs. Drellich reports that the “opinions among owners are mixed.”

Last month, Dodgers president Stan Kasten and Orioles owner David Rubenstein gave different opinions of baseball’s economic landscape. Kasten opined that the Dodgers’ spending is good for baseball while Rubenstein voiced support for a cap. Manfred admitted today that the cap is not the only way to address baseball issues. “I am a huge believer in the idea that there are always multiple solutions to a particular set of concerns,” he said.

The position of the players is more clear. As mentioned, they have long been opposed to a cap, as it would have a negative effect on players’ earning power. Tony Clark, executive director of the MLBPA, attempted to shift the focus to the other end of the spending spectrum. “The league, and the owners it represents, have been predicting doom for decades to justify more restrictions on salaries,” Clark said, “but the game is healthier than it’s ever been. The real question is: Why aren’t all teams, across all markets, using the resources we know they have to put their best foot forward in an effort to be the last team standing?”

Discussions of salary caps often lead to discussions of salary floors, since there are several clubs that are not aggressive at all in terms of spending on players, compared to the Dodgers. The Pirates, for instance, haven’t given a multi-year deal to a free agent in almost a decade. Their three-year deal for Iván Nova in December of 2016 was their most recent such pact.

Overall, the league is indeed healthy, as Clark alluded to. Since the introduction of the pitch clock, MLB itself has flaunted the increases in fan attendance and TV ratings.  Last month, Maury Brown of Forbes reported that league revenues hit $12.1 billion in 2024, a record high. That doesn’t even include “ancillary revenues attached to the clubs such as mixed-use development in and around ballparks, such as The Battery around Truist Park, home to the Atlanta Braves, club-owned RSNs, or companies such as Legends Hospitality, which is co-owned by the Yankees.”

That league-wide economic health naturally benefits some clubs more than others, particularly when it comes to broadcast revenue. Certain popular clubs such as the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees have at least partial ownership of their respective regional sports networks (RSNs). Smaller clubs like the Padres, Diamondbacks, Guardians and Twins have had their RSN deals collapse and now have the league handling things, a model that is widely believed to bring in significantly less revenue.

Per Drellich, changing the revenue sharing model is another point of discussion among owners. There are currently 14 clubs* that receive revenue-sharing but the owners could always agree to increase how much money is flowing downhill. Mark Walter, controlling owner of the Dodgers, gave his perspective on that matter to Shaikin. “I don’t think we’re there,” he said. “We’re probably trying to find something that’s in the best interest of everybody.”

Uncertainties in the broadcast model will also have to be a consideration for the owners as they weigh the pros and cons of pushing for a cap. Even if something like a year-long lockout could hypothetically get the players to agree to such a thing, there would likely be significant negative consequences for the league-wide health that was referenced earlier. Broadcast ratings and attendance would surely drop after such a stoppage, as they did after the 1994-95 strike. It has been reported that 2028 will be a big year for the league, as they look to market a large package or packages of games to various broadcasters and/or streamers. A lengthy period of canceled games would likely be hurting the overall attractiveness of the product just before that pivotal moment.

Manfred has said in the past that he is proud of the relative labor peace of his tenure, with no games having been lost due to a strike or lockout. He is not planning to seek another term as commissioner and is therefore slated to be gone by January of 2029. Unless that changes, he would have to be willing to change that track record on his way out the door in order to lead the owners through a significant stoppage.

There are many moving parts and various different ways of looking at all these issues. Players and owners will often have opposing viewpoints. Large-market clubs and smaller clubs will have different priorities, as will star players compared to fringe players. Baseball fans will be sprinkled all over those different camps to varying degrees.

Many in the baseball world believe another lockout is inevitable. The 2021-22 lockout lasted from December to March of that offseason, though the two sides eventually got a deal done just in time to avoid losing games. Given the apparent strife between the owners and players, many believe that a lockout will become rote with future negotiations. That’s a sentiment that Manfred seems to share.

“In a bizarre way, it’s actually a positive,” Manfred said to The Athletic last month. “There is leverage associated with an offseason lockout and the process of collective bargaining under the [National Labor Relations Act] works based on leverage. The great thing about offseason lockouts is the leverage that exists gets applied between the bargaining parties.”

The union sees it differently. “Players know from first-hand experience that a lockout is neither routine nor positive,” Clark said. “It’s a weapon, plain and simple, implemented to pressure players and their families by taking away a player’s ability to work.”

The two sides could always start talks well in advance of the end of the current CBA, though Manfred downplayed the possibility. “I’m one that likes to bargain early, but we’re still two years away, even if you’re thinking you want to bargain early,” Manfred said. “We got time on that front. And I think the time is particularly important right now, because we do have things going on in terms of the economics of the game — local media being the principal one — that the longer we wait, the more it evolves, the better decisions we’re going to make.”

Drellich also relayed another formality of this week’s meetings, noting that Athletics owner John Fisher and Mets owner Steve Cohen have been added to the owners’ executive council. Those two replace John Middleton of the Phillies and John Sherman of the Royals. The six continuing members of the eight-member council are Paul Dolan of the Guardians, John Henry of the Red Sox, Greg Johnson of the Giants, Ken Kendrick of the Diamondbacks, Arte Moreno of the Angels and Bruce Sherman of the Marlins.

* (Diamondbacks, Rockies, Reds, Brewers, Pirates, Marlins, Athletics, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Twins, Guardians, Orioles, Rays)

Regarding the defense, the rule change now allows a hitting team to accept an awarded base if a defensive player violates the shift ban and is the first player to field a batted ball. Teams are required to keep two infielders on either side of the second base bag. Previously, if a fielder violated the shift ban — likely a middle infielder starting on the opposite side of the base — the hitting team could either take an automatic ball or accept the result of the play. They’ll now be able to take the free base or the play result. If they accept the free base, any runners would move up one base. The fielder will be charged with an error, while the hitter will not be credited with an at-bat.

The change is designed to increase the penalty for teams violating the shift ban. The league felt that teams could push fielders slightly beyond the bag in hopes of getting away with a violation. The rationale would be that if the violation went unnoticed by umpires and opposing teams, the shift could result in an out. If the violation were detected, the automatic ball was unlikely to be that costly. Drellich notes that there were two shift violations that resulted in an automatic ball last season. Those would be errors under the new rule.

The baserunning rule only comes into play in very specific circumstances. If a player deliberately overruns the second or third base bag to beat out a force play, a longstanding rule is that the runner is to be called out for abandonment. Players are only really incentivized to do this if they’re the trail runner when there was a runner on third base with two outs. If they feel they’d be forced out if they slow down or slide, they may instead run through the bag. While they’d likely be tagged out a second or two later, negating the force play would allow the runner who’d been on third base to score.

Now, the replay official can determine whether the runner from third base touched home plate before the trail runner officially abandoned the bag. That’s defined as having both feet on the ground beyond the base. If the lead runner had not scored by then, the run will not count. The rule also includes an adjustment to replay review. Previously, if the umpire had incorrectly called the trail runner out on the initial force play, a successful challenge by the hitting team would call the runner safe even if the runner had gone through the bag. In that scenario, the replay official can now call the runner out by abandonment.

MLB’s competition committee is composed of six owners, four player representatives, and one umpire. The owner majority essentially gives the league unilateral power to make on-field rule adjustments. That has been to the players’ consternation in the past, though these changes are so marginal that they didn’t encounter opposition.

As observed by The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal (using estimates from RosterResource), the Marlins have a luxury tax number of roughly $82.8MM.  This leaves the Fish some ground to cover before they reach the $105MM threshold estimated as the figure representing 150 percent of the club’s reported $70MM or so in revenue-sharing funds.  As stipulated by the league’s collective bargaining agreement, teams who receive revenue-sharing funds must spend at least 150 percent of those funds on player payroll, at the risk of facing a grievance from the players’ union.

It wouldn’t be the first time that the Marlins faced this consequence, as the MLBPA filed a grievance against the Marlins, Rays, Pirates, and Athletics in February 2018 based on the union’s stance that the clubs were simply pocketing a good deal of their revenue-sharing money, rather than reinvesting those funds towards player payroll.  Rosenthal and his Athletic colleague Evan Drellich recently noted that that grievance was still pending in an adjusted form, though the most recent CBA saw the minimum spend rise from 125 percent to its current 150 percent figure.

The revenue-sharing minimum drew more of a spotlight this winter when the A’s started to increase their payroll, which was viewed as the team trying to hit that $105MM tax number and avoid any heat from the players’ union.  The Athletics’ situation is a little different since their revenue-sharing status was reduced in the earlier years of the CBA while the team was looking for a new ballpark, and they are now back to receiving a full-fledged share of revenue-sharing funds in 2025.

The Marlins have generally been among the lowest-spending teams in baseball for most of their history, and spanning multiple ownership groups.  Bruce Sherman’s purchase of the Marlins in 2017 was initially viewed as a possible light at the end of the payroll tunnel, though the sudden departure of CEO Derek Jeter prior to the 2022 season threw a wrench into that perception, especially since payroll expenditures were reportedly one of several sources of disagreement between Sherman and Jeter.

Miami did elevate spending a bit under GM Kim Ng and the team made the playoffs in 2023, but Sherman’s desire for a better farm system led to Ng’s departure after that season, and the hiring of Peter Bendix as the Marlins’ new president of baseball operations.  Taking a page from Bendix’s former team in Tampa Bay, the Marlins seem to be moving towards a Rays-esque model of relying on a strong minor league pipeline to build their rosters, while only modestly spending on payrolls.  Bendix’s arrival kickstarted yet another rebuild, as the Marlins have dealt several of their more experienced and higher-priced players over the last year.

As much as the Athletics’ winter moves were made with the revenue-sharing number in mind, acquiring Luis Severino, Jeffrey Springs, and Gio Urshela are also sensible from an on-field standpoint, given the club’s needs in the rotation and at third base.  Considering that the A’s played solid baseball over the last three months of the 2024 season, the West Sacramento team might even have some darkhorse potential as a wild card contender if everything breaks right and the Athletics get another breakout or two from younger players.

The Marlins are in a different situation.  While there is some interesting talent on the roster, it is very hard to imagine Miami contending in 2025, nor does contending seem to be in the front office’s plans within the near future as Bendix focused on overhauling the player development system.

Spending $22.2MM to get up to the $105MM threshold likely won’t translate, therefore, in any additions that will help Miami win ballgames in 2025.  The Marlins could add a couple of lower-cost veterans on one-year deals, with an eye towards potentially trading those players at the deadline once the majority of their salaries have been officially tallied onto the team’s tax bill.  With a nod towards the Marlins’ goal of restocking the farm system, Bendix could potentially look into trading for a bad contract or two from another team, with that other team adding some prospects as a sweetener to further entice Miami into absorbing most or all of the money owed.

Unsurprisingly, Bendix didn’t provide many details on the Marlins’ spending plans, telling the Miami Herald’s Barry Jackson and other reporters this week that “I’m not going to comment on what we might or might not do.  Bruce continues to give us all the resources we need to build this franchise for sustainable success.”

Bendix also didn’t entirely close the door on the possibility that Sandy Alcantara could be traded, saying that “We never rule out anything.  We listen to everything.”  That said, Alcantara was told back in August that he probably wasn’t getting dealt this offseason, and Bendix noted that “Sandy is a really important piece for our organization.  I’m really excited to see him pitch on Opening Day.”

Alcantara is the highest-paid player on Miami’s roster, as the 2022 NL Cy Young Award winner is owed $17MM in each of the next two seasons, plus there is a $21MM club option ($2MM buyout) on his services for 2027.  This salary has naturally made Alcantara the subject of continued trade rumors, even though Alcantara didn’t pitch in 2024 due to Tommy John surgery.

Obviously the Marlins wouldn’t be trading the right-hander for a maximum return in the wake of this injury, which is why a deal this winter remains unlikely.  If Bendix was to sell low on Alcantara now only to see him rebound to ace form in the early part of the 2025 season, that’ll count as a missed opportunity to gain the biggest possible trade package for the Marlins’ biggest remaining trade chip.  Miami’s payroll might also factor into the equation here, as Rosenthal notes that trading Alcantara would leave the Marlins even further away from the $105MM revenue-sharing threshold.

Just as Bendix isn’t likely to openly state that Alcantara is available in trade talks, the PBO also isn’t likely to entirely shut down any offers because of basic due diligence.  Bendix surely doesn’t want to limit options just in case a pitching-needy team actually is willing to part with a premium return for a pitcher coming off a lost season.

Manfred still has his sights set on getting rid of local blackouts as part of TV/streaming packages, though it might now have to wait a few years. While some clubs that lost their broadcast deals are now letting MLB handle things, others have re-upped with Diamond. The Braves, Cardinals, Marlins, Angels, Tigers, and Rays are back with Diamond while the Royals might also join them, depending on the outcome of ongoing negotiations. But Drellich notes that none of those deals go beyond 2028.

That is significant because that is also the year that MLB’s national broadcast deals with Fox, ESPN* and Turner expire. (*As a side note, Drellich notes that MLB and ESPN have a mutual opt-out after this season but talks about that are ongoing.) The league’s hope is to have as much on the table as possible when negotiating new national deals. “Most important from my perspective is that all the deals for the Diamond clubs end no later than 2028,” Manfred says in the piece. “My interest in local rights in large part is to have them available when we do national renewals.”

The bidding could include more than those three companies that MLB currently has national deals with, as Drellich notes that executives from Apple, Amazon, CBS, Disney/ESPN, DirecTV, Fox, Netflix, NBC/Peacock, Roku, YouTube and Warner Bros.-Discovery were present at the World Series. MLB already has a deal with Roku for Sunday games, a slot previously held by Peacock. Apple has Friday Night Baseball while the Diamond clubs will be available on Amazon Prime next year. YouTube had a previous deal with MLB that ran from 2019 to 2022.

The regional sports network (RSN) model has been a huge source of revenue for all teams in the past but cord cutting has chipped away at that model. The Padres, Diamondbacks and Rockies all operated without an RSN partner in 2024, with the league handling their broadcasts both for TV/cable/satellite and direct-to-consumer streaming. The Twins, Guardians, Brewers and Reds will go down that path in 2025.

Simplistically, this is bad for teams but good for fans. The clubs are losing that passive revenue, as many people previously signed up for cable/satellite bundles that included sports RSNs even if they weren’t much interested in baseball. The streaming model cuts out the middleman but requires more active uptake from fans and leads to lower revenues, at least in the short term. But for fans, this allows them to finally get around the blackouts that have been an annoying part of the RSN paradigm for decades.

Though the revenue streams aren’t as strong, the league seems to recognize that this is the way of the future and is trying to lean into it. Though as detailed by Drellich, actually following through will be complicated.

“I’d like to have all the rights available,” Manfred said. “I’d like to talk to the people who are buyers. I’d like to cut them up into packages and sell them, as many of them as possible, nationally, and then have a plan to deal with what’s left over.”

As mentioned, the league already has seven clubs on its ledger, though Drellich adds that it’s technically eight. The Mariners took control of ROOT Sports Northwest a year ago but Drellich relays that the league is involved to some degree as well. If the six or seven clubs with Diamond eventually link up with the league a few years down the line, that would be roughly half the league. The Rangers are sort of a wild card at present, as they don’t plan to continue their relationship with Diamond but haven’t yet outlined a plan for 2025, reportedly exploring the creation of their own RSN. Drellich says close to two thirds of the league could have their rights available by 2028, presumably due to other non-Diamond RSN deals expiring. Some clubs still have relationships with NBC affiliates or other broadcasters.

The issue in MLB getting the other clubs on board is that they are in very different financial positions. Broadly speaking, the larger-market clubs are in better shape, both because of stronger viewership bases and because the club and its broadcaster are often the same company. If all the clubs were cobbled together as part of some bundle which spread the profits around, that would benefit the smaller clubs while harming the larger ones.

That would naturally be unappealing to the larger clubs, though Drellich notes that a compromise could perhaps be reached by changing the overall revenue sharing. Currently, each clubs shares 48% of their local revenues (local media, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and sponsorships). The Drellich piece suggests that greater sharing of broadcast money could be accompanied by less sharing of the other streams.

“I do think there are a combination of things that for even the very biggest teams,” Manfred says, “we can demonstrate that for the good of the game over the long haul, it’s better for everybody and better for them.”

Another complication is that the MLB Players Association would have to be involved. They don’t need to be consulted when it comes to broadcast decisions but all revenue-sharing plans need to be collectively bargained. The current collective bargaining agreement runs until December of 2026, so these matters will likely need to be hammered out in the next CBA, ahead of the aforementioned key pivot point in 2028.

“If the model changes, we will be involved in negotiating how those changes might affect the system and will ensure that the interests and priorities of the players are protected,” says Tony Clark, the head of the MLBPA. The relationship between the league and the union hasn’t been great lately, with the most recent CBA talks resulting in a lockout of more than three months that almost resulted in the 2022 season being canceled or shortened. A deal did get done and the season was spared, but some key issues went unaddressed and will likely come up again, such as an international draft. Then there’s the ever-present CBA issues like salaries, the competitive balance tax and so on.

Presumably, Manfred won’t want another work stoppage just ahead of his big pitch to potential broadcasters. Anything that hurts fan interest in the game would naturally make those rights less appealing, but the league’s motivation to get a deal done will obviously be contingent on how effectively they can negotiate all CBA issues with the players. The two sides agreed in July of this year to have CBT money redirected to those clubs who lost broadcast revenue, so perhaps some of this could be accomplished outside of full CBA talks.

There are many balls in the air here and a few years for them to bounce around, but Manfred will need to find a path forward that satisfies the owners as well as the players. If he succeeds, it could be good for growing the game by improving fan access to the product. An entrenchment of the current paradigm, on the other hand, could perhaps increase fan dissatisfaction with the inequalities that impact competitive balance.

How it all plays out will lead to ripple effects that impact the on-field product. The Padres and Twins have already scaled back their payrolls in response to the shifting landscape. This seemed to have an impact on last winter’s market, with several free agents settling for deals that fell well below initial projections. Clubs like the Cardinals and Rangers are also planning to dial things back next year.

Such a rule would have to come with exceptions for injuries, blowouts or other extreme scenarios. Rogers reports that the league has discussed criteria where a pitcher could leave before competing six innings, such as throwing 100 pitches, allowing four or more earned runs or suffering an injury. The last one would require an IL stint in order to avoid shenanigans.

Some less-extreme suggestions have also been thrown around, such as a five-batter minimum for relievers, which could give managers more hesitation about making a move. There’s also the possibility of lowering the sizes of pitching staffs or the double-hook designated hitter system. The latter, which has been in consideration for a while, would see a team lose its DH once they remove their starting pitcher. It’s also suggested in the ESPN piece that draft pick compensation could be offered to the team with the most innings pitched by its starting staff.

It’s worth emphasizing that no changes are imminent and MLB has shown that it will experiment with potential changes in independent ball and/or the minors before bringing it to the majors. They have also tried out many changes that never made it to the big leagues, so even getting to the experimental stage is no guarantee that a new rule will eventually be implemented in the majors. If any momentum builds towards making this change a reality, teams would have plenty of warning so that they could alter how they target and develop pitchers for this new reality.

All that said, it’s not a huge secret that this shift has been happening over the years, with most baseball fans keenly aware of the trend lines when it comes to pitcher usage. Even putting aside things like bullpen games and openers, starters have just been throwing less. Just about any volume stat can illustrate this by looking at a recent season compared to one further in the past. Last year, there were five pitchers who hit the 200-inning plateau and five who threw more than one complete game. Just 20 years prior, in 2003, there were 44 hurlers who got to 200 innings and 43 who pitched at least two complete games. Go back another 20 years to 1983 and those numbers are 50 and 82.

This is due to various factors, including the fact that pitchers are less effective a third time through the order. This year, for example, hitters are slashing .238/.311/.388 the first time they see a pitcher. That jumps to .250/.311/.416 the second time and .263/.327/.437 the third time through. Bringing in a high-octane reliever is simply just a better strategy than letting the starter stay out there. This has led to the pejorative term “five-and-dive” to describe modern pitchers only concerned with throwing five innings, compared to old school pitchers who aimed to go a full nine.

Batters and teams are also more focused on power these days. Last year, there were only ten players who qualified for the batting title but finished with less than ten home runs. In 2003, there were 30 such players. In 1983, there were 46. That makes it harder for a pitch-to-contact strategy to yield positive results.

It has also been learned that a pitcher has little control over what happens once a ball is put in play, so teams have been focusing more on strikeouts. The Athletic recently ran a five-part series looking pitchers emphasizing punchouts as opposed to pitch-to-contact strategies. This has led pitchers and teams to look to maximize velocity and spin, which is thought to have had an impact on the abundance of significant injuries and surgeries for pitchers these days.

The hope is that all or many of these factors could be mitigated by the six-inning minimum. Theoretically, a pitcher would have to dial back on velocity a bit in an attempt to stay in the game longer, going back to the old school focus on getting contact with fewer strikeouts.

Along with the pitch clock and the rules to incentivize base stealing, the league is hoping for a more action-oriented game and better entertainment product. It’s also hoped that this will lead to fewer pitchers undergoing Tommy John surgery or other significant operations that require lengthy rehabilitation periods.

Whether it’s possible to actually succeed in this mission and whether this is the best way to go about it is a something that can, and surely will, be debated at length. Many fans despise the constant tinkering that has gone on during the era of commissioner Rob Manfred, while those who yearn for the prominence of the starting pitcher to return would likely be more excited about these potential developments.

Teams that exceed the competitive balance tax threshold are required to pay fees at the end of each season. The league and union split the money. The MLBPA’s portion funds its retirement accounts. That is unaffected by today’s agreement. The league now has the discretion to allocate some of its half of the money to clubs that have seen their TV revenues drop in either of the last two seasons. According to Drellich, the MLBPA projects the league’s half of the CBT payments to total around $150MM this year. Today’s agreement permits the commissioner’s office to distribute half that money to the teams affected by TV problems.

It’s a sensible arrangement for both parties. MLB gets more flexibility to support organizations that have lost some or all of a key revenue source in recent seasons. The union expects that’ll lead to a trickle-down benefit on player salaries. Last offseason, roughly a third of teams pointed to concerns about the long-term viability of their TV contracts as justification for limiting payroll raises or outright payroll cuts. Most of those organizations had contracts with Diamond Sports Group, which is trying to survive as it concludes a lengthy bankruptcy proceeding.

Diamond dropped its contracts with the Padres and Diamondbacks midway through last season. This spring, it renegotiated its deals with the Guardians, Twins and Rangers at lesser fees after threatening to abandon those contracts. Texas had a quieter offseason than expected for a defending World Series champion. Minnesota sliced payroll over the winter and its ownership is reportedly still reluctant to take on money via deadline deals. AT&T Sports dropped its local TV deals with the Rockies, Pirates, Mariners and Astros last offseason. Pittsburgh, Seattle and Houston found alternate broadcasting arrangements (likely with reduced revenues), while MLB stepped in to handle Rockies broadcasts within market.

A good number of teams remain skeptical about the long-term future of their regional sports networks. Diamond is carrying 12 teams on its networks at least through the end of this season. MLB has made no secret of its wariness about the broadcaster’s viability for ’25 and beyond.

Diamond’s ongoing conflict with Xfinity hasn’t done it any favors in that regard. A contract dispute between the broadcaster and the carrier has kept Xfinity customers from watching any games on Diamond networks since May. Blackout restrictions prevent MLB from stepping in to handle in-market broadcasts, leaving a subset of fans without the ability to watch their teams for a couple months.

There was a positive development on that front this morning. An attorney for Diamond said at today’s bankruptcy hearing that DSG and Xfinity had made progress in negotiations and expected to finalize a new contract “in the very near term” (link via Alden González of ESPN).

Under the current rules, teams can only trade competitive balance picks. Only the clubs with smaller markets/revenues get those and they make up a small portion of the overall number of picks in the draft.

Plenty of other sports allow the trading of draft picks, which adds an element of excitement to the draft itself as well as trades during the rest of the year. Many have argued for MLB to follow suit and allow picks to be traded, but the counterargument has been that teams might send away too many picks and doom themselves to years of fielding ineffective teams.

The counter to that argument has usually been that teams can already do themselves plenty of harm by trading away prospects and that things wouldn’t meaningfully change by adding draft picks to the equation. Furthermore, it has been argued that teams should be subject to the consequences of their own actions as opposed to being preemptively protected from them. This latter point seems to be something that Manfred is receptive to.

“The positions the clubs have taken over time in terms of what they want us to do at the table has been a product of a balance between flexibility in terms of utilizing the resources available to you on the one hand and paternalism on the other—that is I’m going to prevent you from doing acts because I think it would be stupid,” Manfred said. “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs. We’ll see how it shakes out. We will go through our (collective) bargaining prep,” he continued. “The clubs are really sophisticated now. I do think that there’s a really good argument for allowing them to decide how to use their resources.”

The MLBPA clearly has some level of concern about tanking, the practice of teams intentionally making themselves worse in the present in order to improve their chances of winning in the future. They have tried to push back against the practice by looking for things in CBA negotiations like a salary floor or draft lottery, successfully getting the latter but not the former.

A team that hamstrung itself by trading away numerous draft picks could perhaps impact free agent earning power, as such a franchise might get into such a poor long-term state that they effectively sit out free agency for a while. But as mentioned, that’s not too similar from a team under the present system that has traded away significant prospect capital and spend many years in rebuilding mode. It could also be argued that such a club may be incentivized to sign free agents who could then be traded for draft picks, making up for those that were traded away in previous years.

Whether the two sides can agree to change the rules will be known in the next few years, as the current CBA extends through the 2026 season. They will have many other issues to address, such as the competitive balance tax, minimum salaries, TV/streaming revenue plans, expansion and other topics, but perhaps there’s a glimmer of hope for those who want to see draft picks trade hands in the future.

The latest collective bargaining agreement introduced the PPI to encourage clubs to carry top prospects on Opening Day rosters, rather than hold them down in the minors to gain an extra year of control, a move generally referred to as service time manipulation.

A major league season is 187 days long and a player needs 172 days in the big leagues to earn one year. By holding a player down in the minors for a few weeks, a club can prevent that player from getting to the one-year mark. Since a player needs a full six years of service to qualify for free agency, the club can gain an extra year of control over a young player by doing this. Some of the oft-cited examples of this practice are Kris Bryant of the Cubs and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. of the Blue Jays, both of whom were top prospects who were called up a few weeks into their respective rookie seasons, thus coming up just short of one year of service.

In an attempt to curb this behavior, the CBA introduced the PPI system, whereby teams could earn an extra draft pick by promoting certain players early in the season. To qualify, a player had to be on at least two out of the three top 100 lists at Baseball America, ESPN and MLB Pipeline, as well as being rookie eligible and have fewer than 60 days of service time. If such a player was called up early enough in the season to accrue 172 days of service the traditional way*, they would be PPI eligible and could net their club an extra pick just after the first round. To earn a pick, a PPI eligible player has to either win a Rookie of the Year award or finish in the top three of voting for Most Valuable Player or Cy Young prior to qualifying for arbitration.

(*There was another new measure in the CBA to disincentive service time manipulation, whereby a player could earn a full year of service even if called up too late. If they were otherwise PPI eligible and finished in the top two of Rookie of the Year voting, they could be bumped up to a full year, but they would not earn their clubs an extra pick. This situation arose with Adley Rutschman of the Orioles in 2022, who finished second in American League Rookie of the Year voting despite missing the first few weeks of the season. He earned a full year of service but the O’s would not have received a bonus pick for that if he had finished first.)

This new detail provides an extra wrinkle, as Chourio and Keith would have been in play for PPI picks. Both of them are top prospects who signed offseason extensions and then cracked Opening Day rosters. However, this new development means they won’t be in play for those bonus picks after all.

On the flip side, Cooper adds that Michael Busch of the Cubs and Joey Ortiz of the Brewers are PPI eligible. When Matt Eddy of Baseball America outlined the PPI rules back in February, he noted that players who debut in the majors and are then traded do not have PPI status with their new club. Busch debuted with the Dodgers last year and was traded to the Cubs this winter while Ortiz debuted with the Orioles before being flipped to the Brewers. Eddy provided a further update today, stating that they are PPI eligible since they were not moved via midseason trades.

This week, host Darragh McDonald is joined by Steve Adams of MLB Trade Rumors to discuss…

• The recent news of the divide in the MLBPA (2:15)
• The release of J.D. Davis and its impact on the MLBPA situation (8:45)
• Recent collective bargaining agreement history and its relation to current MLBPA strife (11:30)
• Giants sign Blake Snell (17:25)
• Padres acquire Dylan Cease from the White Sox (23:15)

Plus, we answer your questions, including…

• Will the Blue Jays make a run at Juan Soto when he hits free agency next year? (33:35)
• I don’t understand some of the outfielder signings this offseason. How does Hunter Renfroe command $6.5MM when Adam Duvall only gets $3MM? Why would the Twins trade for Manuel Margot when they could have just re-signed Michael A. Taylor? Is there a logical explanation? Or did the Twins and Royals front offices just screw up? (39:45)
• Do you think that Emmanuel Clase could be traded at the deadline if the Guardians out of it? If so, what do you think he’d fetch at full strength? (43:00)

Check out our past episodes!

• Injured Pitchers, Brayan Bello’s Extension, Mookie Betts At Shortstop And J.D. Davis – listen here
• The Giants Sign Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler’s Extension, And Blake Snell And Jordan Montgomery Remain – listen here
• How Cody Bellinger’s Deal Affects The Other Free Agents And Why The Offseason Played Out Like This – listen here

The podcast intro and outro song “So Long” is provided courtesy of the band Showoff.  Check out their Facebook page here!

“We would prefer to have a free agency signing period, ideally in December, with a deadline,” Manfred said, regarding the league office and the owners (relayed by Alex Speier of the Boston Globe). Manfred confirmed the league has floated that possibility in conversations with the MLB Players Association, which opposes the idea.

“We actually made proposals to that effect to the MLBPA. They were not warmly received,” he continued (link via ESPN’s David Schoenfield). “With the system we have right now, one of the tactics that’s available to player representatives is to stretch out the negotiation in the belief they’re going to get a better deal. That’s part of the system right now. There’s not a lot we can do about it. Certainly, from an aspirational perspective, we’d rather have two weeks of flurried activity in December, preferably around the winter meetings where (media is) all there to write about it.”

Some agencies, most notably the Boras Corporation, are more comfortable than others in encouraging players to wait deep into the winter to sign. That’s hardly unanimous — high-profile Boras Corp. clients like Corey Seager, Brandon Nimmo, Carlos Rodón and Xander Bogaerts have inked huge contracts relatively early in prior offseasons — but it has again been a topic of conversation with Cody Bellinger, Blake Snell, Jordan Montgomery and Matt Chapman all unsigned into the second week of February.

[Related: Boras Clients Who Signed After January In Previous Offseasons]

One can debate how much responsibility for slowly-developing markets falls on agents, as Manfred implied, versus clubs themselves. Teams can have a similar motivation for waiting to either put an official proposal on the table or move towards a player’s asking price. Clubs could hope that players will feel increased pressure to have a deal in place by the early part of Spring Training and lower their demands. While there’s surely some level of brinkmanship on either side of negotiations that linger for three or four months, there’s no doubt that MLB’s free agent period plays out more slowly than those of other main sports.

The NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary caps and floors, a key distinguishing feature from MLB. That plays a part in spurring early-offseason activity in those other leagues as teams have fixed budgetary ranges. There’s more variability in team payrolls in MLB, which has the luxury tax to disincentivize spending at the top end. There’s no official salary floor beyond the cost of filling a roster with players on league minimum salaries (although obviously no team pares spending to that extent).

While the sport’s salary structure is a significant factor, there’s no question that some kind of signing deadline — whether an end date for multi-year contracts or any major league signing — would translate to a flurry of activity. The impending lockout and transaction freeze on December 1, 2021, led to a run on free agent signings.

As shown on MLBTR’s Contract Tracker, there were 30 multi-year free agent deals agreed upon by December 1 that winter. There were eight such contracts last offseason and only six this past fall. Edwin Díaz and Aaron Nola are the only players to sign nine-figure guarantees before the end of November over the last two offseasons, with both remaining with their previous organizations. There were six deals that exceeded $100MM before the lockout in 2021; all six players changed teams.

It’s easy to make the case that’s a more compelling offseason for fans, even if it’d result in minimal activity in January and February. At this point, it’s mostly academic though.

The MLBPA is broadly opposed to what it perceives as restricting players’ options during free agency. The union certainly harbors concern that a deadline would allow teams to hold firm as that date approaches with higher urgency for players to find jobs before a temporary transaction freeze. It stands to reason the league will try to reengage on this issue once talks get under way about the next collective bargaining agreement in 2026, although it’s hard to envision the MLBPA being more receptive to the idea at that point.

Traditionally, the trade deadline had always been on July 31. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the commissioner can choose a date between July 28 and August 3 for the deadline. This is mostly so that the league can avoid having the deadline occur when games are going on and players have to be removed in a “hug watch” scenario.

If the deadline were to fall on a weekend, when there are many afternoon games, the chances of a player being dealt during an ongoing game would be higher. The commissioner’s office seems to have decided that Tuesday evening is the best choice, as this is the third straight year that the deadline will fall at that part of the week.

“This afternoon, Player Representatives voted against the 2024 rule changes proposed by the Commissioner’s Office,” the statement reads. “As they made clear in the Competition Committee, Players strongly feel that, following last season’s profound changes to the fundamental rules of the game, immediate additional changes are unnecessary and offer no meaningful benefits to fans, Players, or the competition on the field. This season should be used to gather additional data and fully examine the health, safety and injury impacts of reduced recovery time; that is where our focus will be.”

1:15pm: Major League Baseball announced a slate of modifications to the game’s official rules, which have been approved by the MLB Competition Committee (comprised of six owners, four players and one umpire). Per the league’s press release, the changes are as follows:

• Runner’s Lane: The Runner’s Lane will be widened to include the dirt area between the foul line and the infield grass. Widening the lane allows batters to take a more direct path to first base while retaining protection from interference.  The distance between the foul line and the infield grass will be between 18 and 24 inches in all parks, with some limited grace periods granted by MLB due to difficulty in modifying the field (e.g., synthetic turf field).
• Pace of Game: MLB proposed minor changes to the Pace of Game Regulations to address an increase in game time as the season progressed – the average nine-inning game time increased seven minutes from April to September (five minutes after controlling for the number pitches, breaks, and runs scored).
  • Timing Between Pitches: Reduce time from 20 seconds to 18 seconds with runners on base. Pitchers began their deliveries with an average of 7.3 seconds remaining on the 20-second timer in 2023. Pitchers retain the ability to step off and re-set the Clock up to two times without penalty. Violations with runners on base were the least frequent (14% of all violations vs 32% of all pitches) in 2023. A universal 17-second Clock used for the final month of the Triple-A season did not increase violations with runners on base.
  • Batter Timeouts: Based on player feedback, MLB withdrew a proposal that would have required the home plate umpire to immediately reset the Pitch Clock after a batter called timeout.
  • Pitching Changes: If a new pitcher steps onto the warning track with less than 2:00 remaining on the inning break Clock, the Clock will reset to 2:00 rather than 2:15 as was the case in 2023. Inning breaks that contained a pitching change averaged 2 minutes and 35 seconds in 2023 (broadcasters are only guaranteed two minutes of commercial time).
  • Mound Visits: Mound visits will be reduced from five per game to four, and an extra mound visit will still be awarded for the ninth inning if the defensive team has zero remaining at the end of the eighth inning. Mound visits rank among fans’ least favorite events in baseball. Clubs averaged only 2.3 mound visits per game in 2023. Last season, 98% of games would not have exceeded a limit of four mound visits.  Umpires will also permit defensive players to signal for a mound visit without actually visiting the mound to further help improve pace of game.
  • Circumvention: The FTC (field timing coordinator) will now restart the timer after a dead ball (e.g., foul ball) when the pitcher has the ball and play is ready to resume. There will no longer be a requirement for the pitcher to be on the mound, removing the pitcher’s ability to delay the start of the timer by walking around the edge of the mound.
  • Pitcher Who Warms Up Must Face At Least One Hitter: A pitcher who is sent out to warm up for an inning must face at least one batter (in addition to any requirements under the Three-Batter Minimum rule). There were 24 instances this season where the pitcher that warmed up between innings was replaced before throwing a pitch (adding approximately three minutes of dead time per event). There were two such instances during the 2023 World Series.

Runner’s lane photo courtesy of Major League Baseball communications department.

A notable new element of the current collective bargaining agreement is that $50MM is to be taken from central revenues annually and distributed to players that have not yet qualified for arbitration. Certain portions of the money are to be based on awards voting:

• Rookie of the Year: $750K for first place, $500K for second place
• MVP and Cy Young: $2.5MM for first place, $1.75MM for second place, $1.5MM for third place, $1MM for fourth or fifth place
• All-MLB: $1MM for being named “First Team,” $500K for being named “Second Team”

As Blum highlights today, a player is eligible to receive the bonus for one of those achievements per year, earning only the highest amount. Rodríguez finished fourth in American League MVP voting, meaning he got $1MM for that, which accounted for the majority of his payout. After the bonuses, the remainder of the pool is divided on a percentage basis among the top 100 players based on the joint MLB/MLBPA-created version of WAR.

Players are still eligible even if they have signed extensions, as long as they would have been pre-arb without signing such a deal. Rodríguez and the Mariners signed a convoluted extension towards the end of his rookie season in 2022 but he’s only at two years of service time now. Since he would have been pre-arb without that extension, he was able to top this year’s pool.

The following 10 players got more than $1MM:

• Rodríguez: $1,865,349
• Corbin Carroll: $1,812,337
• Adley Rutschman: $1,798,439
• Spencer Strider: $1,692,833
• Justin Steele: $1,673,331
• Kyle Bradish: $1,666,786
• Félix Bautista: $1,467,094
• Gunnar Henderson: $1,428,001
• Jonah Heim: $1,060,306
• Tanner Bibee: $1,016,931

Last year, Dylan Cease got the biggest slice of the 2022 pie, taking home $2,457,426.

Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic reports a number of additional, fairly minor, alterations that’ll be considered. Perhaps most notable would be a requirement that pitchers work from the stretch whenever a runner is on base. Pitchers tend to work from the stretch to hold runners on but sometimes throw from a full windup or hybrid delivery when there’s a runner on third given the unlikelihood of that runner trying to steal home.

The committee is also considering reducing the number of mound visits per team in a game from five to four. A team that used all four would still get one extra visit in the ninth inning.

Another potential change: requiring a pitcher that warms up to face at least one batter. A pitcher who comes out of the bullpen is already required to face at least one hitter, barring injury. Unless that pitcher completes an inning within the first hitter or two, they have to go up against a minimum of three batters.

That only applies for a new pitcher entering the game, however. A pitcher who has faced three or more hitters and concluded the preceding inning can warm up for the beginning of an ensuing frame before being subbed out. While a rare occurrence, this sometimes happens when the batting team calls for a pinch-hitter that spurs a pitching change, usually to mitigate the pinch-hitter’s platoon advantage. Since the oncoming reliever throws warm-up pitches of his own, that can lead to consecutive warm-up breaks with no at-bat, causing a few minutes of dead time. Requiring a pitcher who warms up to face the first hitter would eliminate that occurrence (while offering a slight advantage to the offense in such scenarios).

Free agent infielder Whit Merrifield, one of the player representatives on the committee, proposed a change designed to prevent fielders from blocking a runner’s direct path to any base. The goal of that proposal is to minimize fielder-runner collisions and eliminate scenarios in which an infielder uses his lower body while receiving a throw to shield a runner from sliding into a base. That happens somewhat frequently on stolen base attempts.

Rosenthal covers a few more changes under consideration in a piece that’s worth a full read for those interested in rules minutia. The competition committee consists of six MLB officials, four player representatives and umpire Bill Miller. A simple majority can implement those changes without approval of the Players Association, essentially giving MLB control over on-field rules adjustments.

2023 was the first year with a pitch clock at the MLB level and it had the desired effect of reducing game times and speeding up the pace of play. Per a report from Ronald Blum of the Associated Press at the end of the regular season, the average game time was two hours and 40 minutes in the most recent season, a 24-minute decrease from the season before. However, Passan’s report today indicates that gradually crept up as the season went along and players adjusted to the new rules. The average game length was 2:37 in April but inched up to 2:44 by September. It seems the league hopes to stop that trend by reducing one of the two clocks.

This is likely to get push back from some players, many of whom wanted adjustments to the clock for the postseason out of concern for increased injury risk. However, it was reported in September that no such adjustments would be made. Passan reports that players have similar concerns about this new development, though they may not have much sway to stop it.

The players are outnumbered on the competition committee, as there are six members representing teams, four representing players and one umpire. This structure was agreed upon in the most recent collective bargaining agreement. That gives the league the power to implement rules even if players object, though doing so runs the risk of further souring relations that led to a lockout not too long ago. The players would reportedly be more open to the reduction if it also came with an increase to the bases-empty clock, but the league is apparently uninterested in that.

The committee can implement a change with 45 days’ notice. Since Spring Training starts in February, they would probably want to make a final decision before the calendar flips over to 2024. With the baseball world generally slowing down for the holidays in late December, it’s possible there’s some resolution on this matter in the next month or so.