How would the initial CBA proposals impact the Rockies?

The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between MLB and the Major League Player’s Association (MLBPA) that governs the business of the league as a whole is set to expire at the conclusion of the 2026 season. As always, this means that both sides have started angling to increase their slice of the pie that is the overall profits of the sport.

Both sides have exchanged their initial proposals for changes, the first official public steps towards hammering out what the next CBA will include.

Most, if not all, of these proposed changes will not make it through negotiations to the final agreement in their current form.

They do, however, give us a sense of the types of changes that each side is seeking. This affords an opportunity to assess how those types of proposals would potentially impact the Rockies if a watered-down version of them does make it to the final agreement.

MLB’s initial proposal

The league’s first pitch for these negotiations is light on fluff and instead included just two fundamental changes to the structure of the business.

Team salaries

Creating a hard salary cap of $245.3 million per team.
Creating a hard salary floor of $171.2 million per team.
Committing to the idea that the exact value of the salary cap and floor will encompass a 50-50 split of league baseball revenue between players and ownership as that changes over time. Notably, MLB’s exact definition of “baseball revenue” is vague.

As was the case during negotiations for the previous CBA, Rockies owner Dick Monfort is on the owners bargaining committee and has been a known proponent of a salary cap for some time so the fact that this is being proposed is not surprising. This is probably the least likely single policy to actually be agreed to given the unions decades long vehement opposition, but it is still worth considering the specifics.

If this hard cap and floor were in place in 2026, nine teams would be forced to shed payroll to get under the cap. From the NL West, this would include the San Diego Padres ($9 million) and the Los Angeles Dodgers ($163 million). On the flip side, twelve teams would need to increase player payroll to get over the floor including the Rockies, who would need to increase their payroll by roughly $31 million.

While player payroll is not the Dodgers only advantage, the sheer amount that they would need to cut would unavoidably reduce their ability to paper over mistakes or build roster redundancy at the level they currently can. There would still be a gulf between them and the Rockies in terms of player development, talent evaluation, and attractiveness to free agents, but it would be foolhardy to say that a salary cap and floor wouldn’t somewhat reduce the differences between the two organizations.

Team revenues

Creating a centralized fund for all local media revenue to be distributed evenly between all teams.

This essentially means that teams would share money that comes in from TV and radio deals. Depending on the specifics of what exactly qualifies for this, it could be a massive overhaul to the overall revenue structures for all teams. Smaller market clubs would suddenly get a huge influx of money that they did not previously have access to.

Under this proposal, the factors that would differentiate spending capacity between clubs would be ticket sales, merchandise, and whatever other commercial interests they have (such as ballpark-adjacent real estate like the Rockies have with McGregor Square).

The Rockies, who have had historically good attendance despite comparatively non-valuable media rights, would theoretically see some of the largest benefits from this change of any team in the league.

The MLBPA’s initial proposal

Unlike the league’s proposal which focused on two fundamentally disruptive changes, the MLBPA focused on a large number of smaller adjustments to the existing system as best summarized by Jorge Castillo of ESPN. This is a buffet of changes that, each in isolation, wouldn’t make a large difference, but if taken as a whole would mark a major shift.

If we pool the clauses with similar goals in mind together, we can think through the potential impact on the Rockies specifically.

Team salaries

Raising the existing Competitive Balance Tax threshold from $244 million up to $300 million.
- Removing all existing non-financial penalties (such as draft pick forfeiture) for surpassing the CBT threshold.
Creating a Competitive Integrity Tax that would penalize teams that did not spend at least $150 million on player payroll.

This likely would not change the status quo for the Rockies as a franchise. In seven of the past nine seasons, their payroll would have fit between these two bands as far as the league calculates taxable payroll. It’s a similar story for every other non-Dodgers team in the division. It is possible that teams like the Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks would spend a bit more if the tax threshold were increased, but not enough to fundamentally change the competitive dynamics of the division.

Minimum player salaries

Increasing the minimum player salary (currently $775,000) in installments starting at $1.5 million in 2027 and up to $2.2 million in 2031.

On paper, this seems like it would impact teams in the middle of a rebuild more than others (because they lean on pre-arbitration and marginal free agents). But looking through the payroll breakdowns of the NL West this season, that doesn’t appear to actually be true.

So far in 2026, the Rockies have nine players slated to make less than this proposed new minimum salary. If this were in effect, they’d be on the hook for something north of $6 million more in payroll this season without any further promotions or signings. As it turns out, that’s a smaller increase than every other team in the division other than the Diamondbacks, who currently have five such players.

This would be a big deal for the individual players, but does not seem to have specific competitive implications for the Rockies.

The Draft

Increasing the size of the draft lottery to include the first eight picks instead of just the top six.

This would marginally increase the chance that the Rockies would end up in the draft lottery in back-to-back years and thus be forced to pick outside the top ten regardless of their record the following season, as has happened for this coming draft. It could have some small effect on the front office’s attempts to plan their next competitive window but only marginally.

Pre-Arbitration

Expanding the Prospect Promotion Incentive. Currently, draft picks after the first round are awarded to teams that have eligible players who either win the Rookie of the Year or finish top 3 in Cy Young or MVP voting. In the expanded proposal, picks after rounds two and three of the draft would also be awarded to teams with eligible players that earned lower finishes in any of those three awards voting.
Increasing the pre-arbitration bonus pool from $50 million to $180 million to be awarded to the top 125 pre-arbitration players that have not signed long-term extensions.
Introducing automatic annual increases to the pre-arbitration bonus pool.

All MLB teams contribute equally to the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and thus the players are not paid directly by the team they play for. This would have no effect on the Rockies other than more of their good young players getting financially rewarded for their performance.

The expansion of the Prospect Promotion Incentive, however, could directly impact a team like the Rockies that will be looking to begin building a new core in the coming years via graduates from their farm system. Decreasing the awards voting bar required for a team to earn additional draft picks from rookie performances would incentivize more aggressive callups for teams looking to inject even more talent into their minor leagues.

Arbitration

Making player salaries from arbitration guaranteed. This would mean teams could no longer get out of paying a salary for a player that they lost the arbitration case for just by releasing him.
Introducing a minimum arbitration tender of $3 million.
Doubling the pool of “Super 2” arbitration players from 22% of those with more than two but less than three years of service time up to 44%.
Providing a one-time increase of 20% to pre-existing arbitration salaries (with a maximum of $2 million).

Similar to the minimum salary increase, this would have relatively large implications for overall league payroll, but the distribution of that increase per team is not heavily connected to their market size or competitive window.

For example, comparing the New York Yankees and the Pittsburgh Pirates, one would assume the bigger-market team that always fields a winning roster would rely less on arbitration-eligible players. In fact, however, the 2026 Yankees have 11 players that were arbitration eligible this past offseason whereas the Pirates only have four.

This isn’t likely to impact the Rockies more or less than any other team.

Free Agency

Granting free agency to players that are at least age thirty once they reach five years of service time instead of the standard six.
Eliminating the qualifying offer. Teams would still receive draft picks upon losing a free agent but would no longer forfeit draft picks when signing players.
Creating a system in which teams that receive revenue sharing would be awarded draft picks for signing players at high salaries.

This section is one that could specifically benefit the Rockies, who are a revenue sharing recipient but historically have been able to spend more than most of the other teams with that designation. This combination means that the Rockies would be one of the very best-positioned teams to take advantage of a system in which spending on an occasional high-priced free agent could also net them a draft pick.

The elimination of the qualifying offer would further increase the Rockies ability to spend on free agents as they would not need to worry about losing draft picks that are especially valuable to small and mid-market teams. That being said, the same would be the case for all other teams and would not specifically benefit the Rockies much more than others.

Conclusions

It is worth reiterating that these initial proposals will not be agreed to. The league and the union will continue negotiating, making counter proposals, and publicly vying for support throughout the season and offseason. We likely will not know what portions of these proposals the sides really care about until the threat of potentially losing games in 2027 comes near. Once the two sides reach an eventual agreement, we’ll need to assess it on its own merits.

That being said, even looking through these drastic initial proposals, the thing that stuck out to me most is just how little they would practically affect an individual team like the Rockies in terms of their competitive aspirations or the fan viewing experience. The Rockies biggest problems have always been of their own making and not a factor of institutional disadvantages.

Whether the next CBA favors the players or the owners more, the Rockies fate will largely come down to how well they identify and develop talent (just like always) with potentially a small boost from the new ecosystem… assuming they are astute enough to navigate it well.

On the Farm

Triple-A: Albuquerque Isotopes 14, Salt Lake Bees 13

This was a wild one that went in to the tenth inning and saw the two teams combining for 28 hits, 14 walks, seven stolen bases, and five home runs.

The largest contributors to those totals on the Isotopes side were Adael Amador who was on base four times, Zac Veen (No. 9 PuRP) and Charlie Condon (No. 1 PuRP) who both had two hits including driving in the go ahead and insurance runs, and Nic Kent who had three hits including a home run. Even more impressive, however, was Andrew Knizner who had a monster game in which he collected four hits, two of which were home runs. All told, it was a good night if you like offense.

Double-A: Hartford Yard Goats 7, Portland Sea Dogs 10

On the flipside, defense was the difference in this one. Four separate Yard Goats committed an error leading to three unearned runs, without which the game would have been tied heading into the bottom of the ninth.

Each of Connor Capel, Aidan Longwell, and GJ Hill hit home runs which provided the bulk of the offense for Hartford. On the mound Connor Staine started and went four innings in which the only runs he gave up were accounted for amongst the unearned total. Davison Palermo relieved Staine and had the only clearly poor pitching performance of the night in the form of four earned runs in just a single inning pitched.

High-A: Spokane Indians 2, Hillsboro Hops 4

A relatively low scoring affair that was won when the Hops scored their third run in the top of the fourth, it just took a few more innings for anyone to know it. Bryson Hammer was the starter and allowed those three runs on the back of six hits and four walks but was otherwise solid through five innings. Justin Loer took over for him in the sixth and pitched three scoreless innings.

The lineup, with their nine hits and a walk, had plenty of baserunners but failed to drive them in leaving nine stranded. Both Tommy Hopfe and Jack O’Dowd had two hits, and Robert Calaz (No. 6 PuRP) hit a triple, but Max Belyeu (No. 15 PuRP) had the best offensive performance of the night in the form of three hits including two doubles.

Low-A: Fresno Grizzlies 6, Lake Elsinore Storm 5

The Storm was up five to nothing heading into the bottom of the ninth and then this happened:

Clayton Gray walked.
Tanner Thach singled.
Derek Bernard singled to load the bases.
Carlos Renzullo grounded out but drove in a run.
Tanner Thach scored on a wild pitch before Ashly Andujar (No. 20 PuRP) walked.
Jesus Freitez flied out but drove in a third run.
Luis Mendez walked.
Cameron Nelson smoked a ball past right field that almost landed on a car. Game over.

Do yourself a favor and just go watch that half inning.

Karros turning corner at the plate? HR signals step in right direction | MLB.com

It’s no secret that Kyle Karros has struggled at the plate to start his major league career. Thomas Harding talks to Karros and Warren Schaeffer about his early struggles and how he’s starting to see results. Between Karros’ insistence in this piece that his problems stemmed from not relaxing enough and his pre-season plan of maintaining the approach that he’d had success with in the minors, a picture of Karros as both confident and a bit stubborn may be beginning to emerge.

Rockies’ Ezequiel Tovar adjusting through highs and lows of high-profile year: ‘I’m not a robot’ | Denver Gazette ($)

In comparison, Kevin Henry’s recent piece detailing Ezequiel Tovar’s struggles to start the season show a different response to failure. In the piece Tovar goes into the frustration with his performance and the constant process of making adjustments to identified issues regardless of how the results are playing out on the field.

VOTE NOW! Help make Rockies All-Star Game starters | MLB.com

It’s somehow already June, which means that voting for the All-Star team has officially begun! Vote early, vote often as they say.