MLB Lockout Debate: Salary Caps, Floors and Contracts

Segment Spotlight: Quick Hits From Game Time Decisions

Owners’ Unity and Contract Limits Shape Baseball Lockout Debate

A potential lockout is seen as the clearest threat to the sport, particularly if it extends deep into the regular season and costs games. However, there is disagreement over whether owners have reached a consensus on implementing a salary ceiling and floor.

One view is that lower-payroll teams such as Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee and the White Sox may resist a spending floor. After reaching the playoffs with lower salaries, those clubs may not want to be required to add roughly $30 million in payroll simply to meet a minimum threshold.

Under that argument, the greater priority should be eliminating contracts that run for 10, 12 or 13 years. Limiting deals to four, five or six years could give teams such as Pittsburgh, the White Sox and Cleveland a better chance to retain star players when competing with clubs including the Yankees, San Francisco and the Mets. Another possible incentive would allow players to earn more by re-signing with their current teams.

The opposing view is that nearly all owners are unified in wanting a cap and floor. Although some may privately disagree, the position presented is that ownership knows what it wants and will act collectively. Mark Walter was also cited as supporting the need for a cap.

April 1 was identified as the point when the situation could become contentious because that is when players begin getting paid. Until then, there may be few direct ramifications for the players, leaving uncertainty about how negotiations will unfold.