'This is all anonymous?': MLB players unfiltered on salary cap, CBA talks and -- whether there will be a 2027 season

With the MLB playoffs just around the corner, the focus across baseball is usually on the excitement of the home stretch. But this year, there is another topic looming over baseball: the ongoing labor battle. Just how often are conversations about CBA topics taking place in MLB clubhouses? How do players really feel about a salary cap, their MLBPA leadership and how this round of negotiations compares to previous years? Do big leaguers think a lockout that will shorten the 2027 MLB season is ahead? We asked more than two dozen current major leaguers for their unfiltered answers on the state of MLB's labor negotiations, granting them anonymity to ensure they could speak freely and openly. Here is what they had to say. How open are you to a salary cap? NL starting pitcher entering arbitration: Not open. NL infielder making eight figures annually: Zero. No chance. NL infielder on two-year contract: Zero. Absolute zero. AL catcher entering arbitration: I need more information, but perhaps I would listen on it. NL pre-arbitration journeyman: From what I've been told, I don't think it's good for the game. I just don't know if I know all the pros and cons of it. But, from everything we've been told, it doesn't sound like it's a good thing. NL reliever on multiyear contract: With the right criteria, I'd be open to it. AL starting pitcher in arbitration: I don't want it. In '94, they canceled the World Series, so if those guys can miss over half a year and miss the World Series, I think we're fully prepared to hold out for sure. NL rookie making the minimum, signed for first-round bonus: It's not something you want to hear. I know the other sports have it, but baseball has always been different. AL infielder making eight figures this season: I've seen how it affects long term. If you look at the other leagues and everything like that. So, most likely not. Because that's the whole point, is they're going to make it look really good for the first one. But then every five years, we're going to have to renegotiate, we're going to have no power and they're just going to keep cutting our piece of the pie smaller. So the first one will look good. NL starting pitcher making seven figures this season: The thing that strengthens the argument against it is the first year of the cap, or the first offer of the cap, is going to sound decent on paper and people are going to look at it that don't know about the system and say, 'Oh, why wouldn't they be OK with that?' Go look at what salary cap revenue percentages have done [after the first year]. It starts at 53%, starts at 54%. ... The way that salary caps have been squeezed is inherently the reason we won't break. NL infielder on a lucrative contract: Get ready to see a bunch of schoolteachers and whatnot out there, because we're not playing if there's a cap. Would you be open to a salary cap if the league shows it can help you individually make more money? NL pre-arbitration journeyman: That's a good question ... This is all anonymous? I mean, probably, yeah. NL starting pitcher on multiyear contract: I don't know how that would be possible. But I guess possibly. NL infielder on a multiyear extension: No, because that's not true. NL rookie making the minimum, signed for first-round bonus: I think we should always listen. Both sides should. I'll let our leadership determine what's right. Reliever with union leadership role: With rare exception, or it would have to be crazy external circumstances, the cap is going to be bad for players, the player group in general. So, yeah, even if I can benefit specifically, it's about the whole. NL free-agent-to-be coming off multiyear deal: We've been taught to think of everyone, not just an individual. Reliever approaching arbitration: It's bad for everybody else, so, no, I wouldn't accept it. It's about all of us. And the thought that a veteran player is going to get $10 million under the system instead of eight -- I just don't think that's the case. AL starting pitcher in arbitration: That just gets very individualized. I think the industry, as a whole, we're making a ton of money. The owners are making a ton of money, and I think our sport's in a really good spot and I don't know why we would change it from where it's at right now. NL starting pitcher making seven figures annually: The gains that we've made with younger players on all this stuff, the exponential jump in extensions -- like young players aren't suddenly now twice as valuable as they were when I was 23. I turned down a borderline record extension pre-arb that now is being blown out of the water every year. The value proposition didn't change; we were just making way more money. The game has never grown the way it has now. The ceiling's higher than it's ever been, so why would we cap ourselves? It's just not going to happen. Will there be a lengthy lockout that impacts the 2027 season? NL free-agent-to-be coming off multiyear deal: Yes. That's easy. Nothing gets done until a deadline. We managed to avoid it last time. Hoping for the same. AL player rep: I hope not, but gut feeling is probably. Reliever with union leadership role: We're not missing games. I'm holding onto that hope. We're gonna put that out there and see what happens. NL reliever on three-year contract: I think it's too early to tell, but I'd say it's probably about 50/50 right now. AL infielder making eight figures this season: If it's a yes or no answer, I'm going to go with hopefully not. I don't think so. I hope both sides figure it out. It makes no sense for there to be a lockout. And the owners saying it as far out as they have, yes, there's going to be a lockout, yes, there's going to be a lockout. And I just hope it doesn't affect [the season] and we figure it out before then. AL starting pitcher in arbitration: It seems like it from what everyone is saying. I don't think we'll miss games. At least I hope not. NL reliever on two-year contract: I would lean towards yes. I think it ends up, if i'm guessing, I would say it ends up probably about how 2021 ended up. How many 2027 games will be missed? NL starting pitcher entering arbitration: As many as it takes, but the lockout's not up to us. I would say yes. It's out of our control, though. NL starting pitcher making seven figures this season: I don't think we're playing until June. NL rookie making minimum, signed for first-round bonus: [Missing games] seems like a longshot. We haven't missed games in a long time right? NL infielder making eight figures this season: The last time we didn't miss games because we played doubleheaders, we played a lot of doubleheaders. We played the 162, but there were a lot of doubleheaders. I think this time, how can I say it? I would say probably, yes. There are going to be some games that will be lost. AL reliever on a two-year contract: I think just like the last one, I think we will obviously go into a lockout, have a shortened spring training and if we miss, hopefully, only a few weeks of the season and make them up in doubleheaders or maybe get in 150-something games. I think we'll miss a few games. NL reliever on two-year contract: It depends on your definition of missing games. Starting on time? No. I doubt that. Missing games? I'm assuming it goes roughly like how we structured the '21 season. Would be my guess if I had to pick something. But I also wouldn't be shocked if we ended up missing some games. What one topic is most important to you during these labor negotiations? NL infielder making eight figures annually: Definitely has to be how we improve the game. For the fans, and the players and owners. AL hitter making eight figures this season: Getting a fair deal for players. I feel like we did that last time. The game is growing and players understand what they deserve. NL starting pitcher entering arbitration: Getting all classes of players compensated fairly. NL starting pitcher on three-year contract: I guess the salary cap situation would be priority No. 1. NL reliever on two-year contract: The salary cap, the refutal of that is like No. 1. But beyond that, I think the game's in a fairly good place right now ,and I think the only thing that hurts our game right now is the potential of a lockout and a work stoppage. I think that hurts our game and I think it hurts the owners every bit as much as it hurts us. AL reliever on two-year contract: To the owners it's the salary cap. For us players, I would say how do we encourage the owners to spend more money? NL infielder on multiyear extension: A lot of this stuff isn't for me anymore. For me personally it's more about taking care of the younger guys in our game; those guys who are never gonna get to free agency. Those guys who don't have the ability to play 10 years, 12 years in the big leagues. The lifespan of a major league player is 2½ , 3½ years, maybe, and then they're out. NL reliever on three-year contract: For me, it would be how long it takes to get to free agency. But secondary to what are the terms in which we're playing under? If we have a cap, if we don't have a cap moving forward. Things like that have to be answered before you can really discuss those other things. Reliever with a union leadership role: As a reliever I care about making sure we're doing a good job of presenting some reliever awards and doing, like in the pre-arb bonus pool, we're doing like transactions so relievers aren't getting screwed when they throw three or four shutout innings and getting shipped out of there. So, some service-time pay. I care a lot about the minimums, for a lot of reasons. And I care about revenue, making sure that the parity problem is addressed without a cap. AL starting pitcher in arbitration: Big league minimum. When you think about it, you're playing in cities like New York and California, if you're in the big leagues, you should have enough money to be able to live and not have so much money taken away from you and I think minimums should go up for sure. NL pre-arb journeyman: I just hope it's done by spring training so we can play and make money. That's all I really care about right now. How often do conversations about labor come up in the clubhouse? NL starting pitcher entering arbitration: Pretty frequently. I'd say once a day. Whether it's in the dugout, flights, clubhouse. Guys ask a lot of questions about a cap ....They want to be aware of how it would affect them individually and how it would affect all players and I think once they're fully informed, it's like, 'Yeah, we're not playing. If that's the sticking point in the negotiation, we'll miss games over it.' NL reliever on three-year contract: Around times like this conversations are had. After it's over, it's kind of an afterthought for two years and then three years out, you're like, 'Well, we're preparing to do this again.' NL free-agent-to-be coming off multiyear deal: Once in a while, kind of wondering if we're going to play next year. But not too much. We're focused on playing every day. NL pre-arbitration journeyman: I'd say a few times a week. Yeah, it gets brought up at least a few times a week. NL starting pitcher on three-year contract: This year definitely more than the past just because it's up at the end of this year. So I don't know. Maybe a couple of times a week. AL reliever on a two-year contract: Just whenever a huge headline comes out. I wouldn't say very often. In spring training [the salary cap conversation came up] probably once a week, then once the season started probably once every three weeks. NL infielder making eight figures this season: It's talked about, it's talked about. I'd say it's pretty common. As soon as it's brought up, [a potential salary cap] is brought up, it's like, 'No, it's not going to happen.' NL reliever on two-year contract: I would say fairly regularly. I think it's one where it comes up more when things are said. Obviously, things get brought up in passing on occasion, but I think when bigger things like the proposals and whatever go, those things spur a lot of the discussion. It's weird because we have an incredibly young team so a lot of guys, they're concerned about it, but their purview of it is down the road compared to older guys. We look at it like in the terms of one CBA negotiation versus some of these guys are looking at it over the course of two, potentially three negotiations. So I think it's just a little bit different perspective. How confident are you in the MLBPA after recent leadership changes? NL rookie making minimum, signed for first-round bonus: Very confident. They have kept our reps informed I think. NL infielder making eight figures this season: I'm very confident. Just because the group is more vocal this time around. AL starting pitcher in arbitration: Super confident. Bruce [Meyer] is a lawyer. I think that really helps us understand the language written and everything, and we're looking forward to watching him continue to get through the negotiations. NL starting pitcher on three-year contract: Just hearing Bruce and everyone talk, I feel like we are in good hands and I think we're in a good spot right now. Relief pitcher with a union leadership role: They've been great. They've stepped up great. As we knew they would. That's why we voted them in. They're commanding rooms, they're commanding information, keeping everyone informed. They're strong, but open, willing to hear ideas from players and the other side. It's been a really good tone from our leadership showing strength, but also showing some creativity, willingness to compromise. All this stuff. But yeah, I think the big thing is just commanding the room and keeping guys informed. NL starting pitcher entering arbitration: I think Bruce has done a really great job. I think Matt [Nussbaum] is really sharp and he says exactly what needs to be said and not a word more. And he does a really good job keeping players unified and on the same page. All the other guys -- [Jeff] Perconte, Slow [Kevin Slowey], Andrew Miller -- they're all in their jobs for a reason and they do a really good job of it. And then player wise, I think with the stuff that happened with Tony [Clark], it showed that we did a really good job with the subcommittee and we did a really good job electing player reps and we need strong leadership going into a labor negotiation and we have it. NL free-agent-to-be coming off multiyear deal: I'm confident in our union membership. We drove the bus the last time. NL infielder on a multiyear extension: I've been very, very impressed. It was a really sad situation for that to happen when it did, but honestly, the job that Matt and Bruce have done, stepping up in those positions, has been huge. AL infielder making eight figures this season: The whole situation was a little unfortunate, but I think there have been some bright spots blossoming through it all. Our new head negotiator, Nussbaum, really good speaker. I think he grabs the attention of the room well. Makes a lot of really good points. Extremely smart individual. So I feel like we're in good hands. How does the state of labor negotiations compare to this point in 2021? NL free-agent-to-be coming off multiyear deal: It feels very similar to where we've been for years. So that may not be a great thing, but things can always change. NL infielder making eight figures this season: It's the same thing. It's the same playbook. AL infielder making eight figures this season: This is typically how the first couple of proposals are. Both sides kind of understanding, hopefully we can find a middle ground. I'll say this: I think baseball's in a great spot right now. I personally am a fan of the pitch clock. I think it's made games, No. 1, more entertaining for fans, better for the players. I know some pitchers would probably disagree. I understand [the league's] arguments. But I just feel like the whole thing, it's really running well right now, and I would hate to see that stop. And hopefully it's not necessary to make it stop, but unfortunately, business is business. AL reliever on a two-year contract: I think we're a little bit more prepared. We know what to expect, especially with the lockout. So I would say we're definitely more confident going into this one. NL reliever on a two-year contract: I think the players are very together and dug in: no salary cap, because it's never been good for any sport that's ever had it for the players. So we're very aware a cap in no way ever helps us. All it does is basically give owners cost control and helps them increase franchise valuations. All it does is help them because it mitigates any variability in cost. Relief pitcher with a union leadership role: The cap is more of a centerpiece issue this time around, but there were a lot of things we were coming in hot about last CBA that were not well received by the other side and all that stuff, so it was similar. But we got a deal done without missing games. I'm hopeful we can do the same thing this time around, but we'll see.