pOn Wednesday, the Major League Baseball Players Association shot high in its first offer to the MLB owners regarding what it wants in the next collective bargaining agreement.

The current CBA runs out on Dec. 1 and if there's no agreement by then, the league will halt while the new CBA is hatched out.

On Thursday, the owners gave their rebuttal to the players, also shooting high. The owners are proposing a salary cap system, with the salary cap landing at about $245 million, and the salary floor landing at about $171 million, including player benefits.

On first glance, most fans will probably be on board with this proposal, as it addresses the biggest issue for most fans: Spending disparity in the sport.

Most fans agree that the gap between the rich teams and "poor" teams is too much and they want that addressed. However, the $171 million floor indicates that if owners are willing to guarantee that much spending in the future, then why are half the league's teams spending less than that this year? The Seattle Mariners payroll is listed at $163 million.

However, the "player benefits" cost somewhere between $18-25 million a year depending on who you ask, so the M's would be in compliance to the new salary floor proposal. 

But the point stands: If you're telling us you can spend that much in the future, why are you not investing in your rosters now?

Well, it doesn't tell you what the trade off for a salary cap system would be. In order to obtain such a radical change to the sport, the owners will have to give up something significant. According to Travis Sawchick, the last time the owners asked for a cap was 1994. In that proposal? Players would hit free agency after four years. It's currently six. That would also be a drastic change.

In all honesty? Not necessarily.

1) Other teams would spend. Currently, the Mariners are benefiting from the Athletics and their lack of spending in the division. The M's are also benefiting from the Astros spending binges of the last few years, as the roster has gotten older and more expensive while also breaking down. That's part of the reason why the Astros are struggling so much in 2026. The M's are also benefiting from other American League teams like the White Sox and Twins not spending, which have led to some easier victories and more playoff opportunities. 

While it's difficult for the Mariners to contend with the spending habits of the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays, if every team started spending, the M's would have an ever tougher battle for talent on the market. Furthermore, if teams weren't able to overspend and eventually regret it, like the Astros, that would harm the Mariners too.

2) Homegrown players would become a punishment to some degree. Think of the NFL: The Seattle Seahawks can draft running back Kenneth Walker and he can make an immediate impact on the roster, giving the organization four excellent seasons. The Seahawks won the Super Bowl with Walker carrying the load, and I don't begrudge him for leaving for the Kansas City Chiefs in free agency.

Baseball is different. Players don't often come up and make an immediate impact. It takes time. So the Mariners will, what? Draft and develop Cole Young in the minor leagues, only to see him to take two years or so to find his footing in the big leagues? And then they'll only get him for two years before he's ready to leave in free agency or sign a big deal? How about Logan Gilbert, Bryan Woo or George Kirby? Could you imagine them being gone after four years before they've really peaked?

Make no mistake: The current six-year system and arbitration are not necessarily good for individual players, but for the development of the Mariners roster itself, more team control is good. That would probably go away, meaning that cultivated homegrown players won't be able to stick around - or hit their peaks in Seattle - as often.

3) Salary caps don't necessarily create more parity. The NFL has a salary cap: The New England Patriots and Kansas City Chiefs have won nine Super Bowls since 2000, nearly a third of the Super Bowls played. The Florida Panthers just won back-to-back Stanley Cups and a salary cap didn't stop the Golden State Warriors from becoming a dynasty.

4) M's would no longer have the rare card in their back pocket, as I said on the most recent 'Refuse to Lose Territory' podcast.

"And by the way, I know the Mariners are not really in this business anymore, but if there was a salary cap, they would lose the ability to overpay in free agency.

The Robinson Cano deal would never have happened for the Mariners under a salary cap system because the Mariners very clearly had to pay so far above and beyond what anybody else would pay in order to get Cano. You would lose that ability. You would lose that ability in your back pocket if you really wanted to.

Again, the Mariners haven't really wanted to do that since then, but you wouldn't have it even as an option under a salary cap system.

A salary cap system would cause the Mariners to lose more of their guys. They develop players only to see those players leave. They would lose the ability to retain some of their guys.

We're pumped that the Mariners have kept Julio, and have kept Cal Raleigh, and have kept Colt Emerson. You wouldn't be able to do all of that in a salary cap league, and you would be constantly turning over the roster like in the NFL.

While there is some fun to that, it's not always fun to lose good players who are fan favorites."

You can listen to the most recent edition of the 'Refuse To Lose Territory' podcast featuring Foul Territory TV host Scott Braun here, or you can watch the episode on YouTube.

Remember to join our MARINERS on ROUNDTABLE community, which is FREE! You can post your own thoughts, in text or video form, and you can engage with our Roundtable staff, as well as other Mariners fans. If prompted to download the Roundtable APP, that's free too!