The Seattle Mariners enter play on Wednesday at a very disappointing 70-82 on the season. A season that was supposed to end in a World Series win has turned into arguably the worst season in franchise history as the Mariners have lost 32 of their last 51 games, and have gone 2-7 against the A's and Angels in September. Those are the two teams with the worst records in the American League.

At a time when the American League has never been worse, the Mariners have punted an opportunity to seize control of the league. They are going to finish under .500 for the first time since the COVID-shortened 2020 season. 

And once the Mariners season ends, there will be massive questions about the future of the organization, but there will also be massive questions about the future of the sport as a whole.

The MLB collective bargaining agreement is set to expire on Dec. 1, and at that point, the league is expected to be thrust into a lockout. There was a lockout in 2021, and the 2022 season ended up barely affected. However, this lockout could jeopardize part - or all - of the 2027 season because of the battle brewing over a salary cap system.

By now, you know this: MLB is the only of the four major sports to not have a salary cap system. Owners would like one to reign in spending on player salaries, level the financial playing field and increase profit margins. Players do not want one because they feel a cap system hurts their earning power. It certainly does at the top of the food chain.

With a salary cap, would come a salary floor as well. Here's what you need to know and how it would impact the Seattle Mariners.

As noted by 'The Athletic,' MLB is going to propose a salary floor of $171.2 million and a salary cap of $245.3 million. The players would receive 50 percent of the league revenue.

What we don't know? Are those salaries solely for the players on the roster? Or does it include things like minor league salaries and draft bonuses? If it does include those things, then you're talking about major league players making less than that number indicates.

Also, what counts as "revenue?" For instance, the Braves own the area around Truist Park. Are those earnings included in the revenue? The players surely would want them counted.

How could we get to this floor? Well, right now, not every owner could (likely) comfortably go to a $171.2 salary floor. However, in a salary cap league, the local and national media rights deals get pooled together and then divvied out. This means that a team like the Marlins will benefit from the Dodgers TV deal. 

The Dodgers will lose their spending advantages and the advantages that their local television deal provides.

1) The Mariners are already in this spending range, so they don't need to do anything different if they don't really want to. They don't have to aggressively cut payroll in order to get in compliance, and they don't have to spend a bunch more for the same reasons.

2) Eight teams would have to cut payroll in this scenario (Yankees, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, Mets, Phillies and Padres. This means that the Mariners wouldn't have to be worried about being totally outspent by some of their AL competition and there would be less of these teams stacking all the best talent.

3) With less players being stacked on the top teams, there would be more room for the Mariners (and other teams) to acquire impact free agents. If they can't all congregate in the same big-market spots, then the Mariners could nab some of them in a way they haven't really been able or willing to. Every offseason, you see teams like the Cleveland Browns, Tennessee Titans and other small-market NFL teams perform well in free agency. The Mariners could too.

4) Being good at your own player development is still a benefit in this cap system. IE, the NBA allows you to sign your own players for longer than outside free agents. Major League Baseball seems to be trending toward proposing that as well. So, if the Mariners continue to draft and develop well, they could have the ability to sign their own guys for longer, making staying in Seattle a desired path for homegrown talent. 

If you're tired of seeing homegrown stars leave places, as happened with Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez in the 1990s, then this is a good thing for you.

1) Well, if the Blue Jays, Yankees and Red Sox spending less is good for the Mariners, then the A's, White Sox, Rays, Guardians and others spending more is bad. There would be less of a gap between teams and more potential parity, which means more potential decent-to-good teams, and more potential losses.

2) Even if there is the ability to re-sign your own guys for more money or extra years, you still won't be able to retain everyone. The Seahawks had to let Tyler Lockett go at one point, and they had to let Riq Woolen and Coby Bryant go this offseason. You just can't keep everyone in a salary-capped league. Would the Mariners be able to keep Cal Raleigh, Julio Rodriguez, Colt Emerson and JP Crawford in this system? Remains to be seen.

3) If a team senses they won't be able to sign their own guys to contract extensions, then you could get more trades of players before they hit free agency. Or, you could get the sign-and-trade, like in the NBA, potentially. We saw Anthony Davis get traded from the New Orleans Pelicans to the Los Angeles Lakers because they knew they weren't going to re-sign him, so they simply dealt him. That could happen to the Mariners, causing you to lose out on some time with these homegrown players you've grown to love.

Well, the top-end players would make less. There would likely not be any more $700 million contracts that pay $70 million per year. The money could be more spread out though, so more players could make more than they are under the current system.

The salary cap is the headliner, but there are many other issues that need to be ironed out in the CBA negotiations. Let's just hope they get ironed out in a way that doesn't impact games in 2027.