Bryce Harper's fiery message to Rob Manfred puts MLB one step closer to a lockout

It was weekend full of drama around MLB, but the most tension-filled showdown didn't take place on a baseball field at all.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred paid the Philadelphia Phillies a visit last week, part of his annual tour of all 30 clubhouses in order to interface with and get feedback from big-league players. But this meeting was a little bit different: Since the Los Angeles Dodgers' record-breaking offseason, Manfred and some prominent owners haven't been shy about pushing for big changes to the sport's business model, and with the current CBA set to expire after the 2026 season, the threat of more labor strife has been bubbling just under the surface.

That threat has now apparently boiled over in a big way, thanks to one of the biggest stars in the sport. According to a report from ESPN's Jeff Passan on Monday, Manfred's meeting with the Phillies went off the rails when former MVP Bryce Harper grew frustrated with where the conversation was heading. After making clear that players weren't afraid of missing games to avoid a salary cap, Harper laid the gauntlet down: "If you want to speak about that," he said, "you can get the f--- out of our clubhouse."

Passan adds that cooler heads eventually prevailed, with Harper and Manfred even shaking hands before the meeting dissolved. But as if this weren't clear enough already, this latest encounter — one of the game's most prominent players cursing out his commissioner — sets the stage for an all-out war to come. And if both sides are dug in, the 2027 season could be a casualty.

For more news and rumors, check out MLB Insider Robert Murray’s work on The Baseball Insiders podcast, subscribe to The Moonshot, our weekly MLB newsletter, and join the discord to get the inside scoop during the MLB season.

Bryce Harper told Rob Manfred what he needs to hear amid propaganda tour

Let's make one thing clear here: Manfred has much more on his mind in these clubhouse sessions than just building some good will. He's heard the message from his owners loud and clear: They want to reign in spending, and it's up to him to get the players on board.

"Rob seems to be in a pretty desperate place on how important it is to get this salary cap because he's floating the word lockout two years in advance of our collective bargaining agreement (expiration)," Harper's teammate, Nick Castellanos, told Passan afterward. "That's nothing to throw around. That's the same thing as me saying in a marriage, 'I think divorce is a possibility. It's probably going to happen.' You don't just say those things."

This has been Manfred and the league's party line for months now, ever since the cries about unequal spending began to reach a crescendo this past winter. To hear them tell it, it's a necessary corrective; how can the likes of the Miami Marlins possibly compete with the Dodgers and New York Mets, teams willing to run payrolls north of $300 or $400 million? Why should baseball be the only major North American sport without a salary cap?

Which has some merit, in so far as it goes. But it fails to paint the whole picture, which Harper is more than smart enough to realize. The NFL and NBA have salary caps, but they also have a far more even revenue split between teams and players; whereas those leagues are 50-50 or even 51-49, MLB consistently comes in at around 55-45 in favor of ownership. And those leagues also, most critically, have salary floors: The NFL, for instance, requires teams to use at least 90 percent of their cap space over a given four-year period.

That sure feels like it would be a deal-breaker for the Pirates and Marlins of the league. Just hypothetically, if MLB instituted a $200 million salary cap tomorrow, would that be a magic wand that will convince Bob Nutting to spend an average of $180 million per year over four years? For context, Pittsburgh hasn't cracked $180 million over the last two years combined.

Harper saw the push for a salary cap for what it is: An attempt by the league's most craven and miserly owners to not have to try too hard to put a watchable product on the field. And you can't blame him for telling Manfred in no uncertain terms that he wasn't buying it. Unfortunately, the other side seems unlikely to listen.

MLB owners happy to put their own wealth before the good of the game

Even if the players wanted to engage with ownership in good faith on ways create more economic parity in the sport, there's no reason to think that they'll be met halfway. Because while some teams are facing uncertain futures as the media rights landscape shifts underneath them, baseball doesn't really have a revenue problem. It has an ownership problem: It's awfully hard to build a functional and healthy sport when a not-insignificant portion of your 30 teams are essentially rent-seeking, content to cash checks from their appreciating asset while maybe gesturing vaguely in the direction of competing on the field.

"In the back of our heads we're like, why are you talking to us like owning a baseball team is like owning a nail salon?" Castellanos said. "That you're only going to be a functional business if you can make up the money that you put in this year?"

That's what really is at issue here: Never mind that owning a sports franchise is among the best investments you can make, a constantly appreciating asset; the Bob Nuttings of the league want to be able to run their team in a way that maximizes profit, and they want to do so without any pesky fans getting frustrated at the arrangement. Until that mindset changes, there's little room for compromise, and Harper and the rest of his union are right to treat it with hostility rather than dialogue.