With the Collective Bargaining Agreement expiring on December 1, the players’ association will have to renegotiate with Major League Baseball on new standards to be set for the following years. While CBA negotiations are routine, the gap between the players and the league is unusually large this time around, especially with the prospect of expansion coming into view.

We’ve seen a lockout before, most recently in the winter of 2021-2022, but the issues on the table this time around are much more pressing. If the players are locked out this year, many fear the lockout could impact the 2027 season in some way, potentially taking baseball away from fans. Given the circumstances, many think back to the 1994 strike that caused thousands of fans to step away from the game that they felt had turned its back on them.

Previous negotiations have centered around the luxury tax, minimum salaries, and disagreements about arbitration; however, this time, the proposal of a formal salary cap is at the forefront and is not something the players are fond of. The MLBPA has long been opposed to a salary cap, dating back to labor negotiations in the ’90s, as the salary cap will directly impact players’ salaries. This is why many believe this might be one of the most contentious negotiations in recent memory.

Baseball has gained lots of popularity over the past decade-plus, with attendance and viewership seeing three straight years of growth for the first time since 2007. A lockout would be a massive blow to the game. After making so much progress, MLB could be taking quite a few steps back if baseball is not played in 2027.

The primary disagreement between the MLBPA and MLB is over a potential salary cap/floor. In a recent report, the initial proposal was a cap of $245.3 million and a floor of $171.2 million. The proposal was made by the league in an attempt to make the league more competitive for smaller-market teams, so they are not dominated by teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, and Mets, which have significantly more funds to allocate to payroll.

Yet, currently, three of the six division leaders are from small markets (Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Cleveland) that would be required to up their payrolls significantly under the league’s salary floor proposal. Cleveland would actually have to more than double its current spending—they currently have the second-lowest payroll in baseball, at just over $80 million.

However, there is a clear flip side to this: the Los Angeles Dodgers. LA has won back-to-back championships, becoming the first team to do so since the Yankees won three straight from 1998-2000. The Dodgers are nothing short of a super team, thanks to their deep pockets. They even managed to ink the most highly touted free agent of this past offseason (Kyle Tucker), as well as one of the game’s top closers in Edwin Diaz. The Dodgers’ success has been the clearest and most current example owners cite for why there needs to be change, as their spending has coincided with the ultimate on-field success.

For the players, the bookended salary restriction for teams would mean reduced individual salaries, which is a clear no-go. MLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer estimates that players would be “taking a $500 million pay cut if they accepted MLB’s [current] salary cap proposal.” Bob Nightengale also quoted him as saying that there is zero chance the players will ever accept any form of a salary cap.

The MLBPA countered with a proposed first luxury tax threshold, bumped up from the current $244 million to $300 million, to remove a reason owners might want to limit their spending. They also proposed raising the players’ minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5 million and agreed that there needs to be punishment for teams that don’t spend enough to compete.

Overall, both sides believe the game is in a great place to expand, but these issues need to be ironed out before that can become a reality. The sides will continue to speak throughout the season in hopes of avoiding a lockout. Missing games is not a guarantee, but the ensuing debate is emotionally and financially charged on both sides. Fans can only hope that both sides make concessions and that the game we love will be played in 2027.

For almost 40 years, John Sterling has been the voice of the Yankees. A voice recognized across the tri-state area, Sterling was more than an announcer: he was a storyteller. His mere presence was comforting to people, both to fans over the radio and to those who knew him personally. John Sterling was truly a bright light amidst the chaos of people’s everyday lives.

Though synonymous with consistency, Sterling’s early career was nomadic. He started off calling games for the then Baltimore Bullets in 1970 before migrating north to cover a cadre of teams, notably the New York Islanders and New Jersey Nets. At the start of the 80s, Sterling traveled south to become the voice of the Atlanta Hawks and Braves.

Finally, Sterling made his way back to New York, where he became the on-air voice of the Yankees in 1989 and the icon so many people remember as the soundtrack to their childhood. Sterling became synonymous with the Yankee organization, hosting 11 years of the show Yankeeography, for which he won two Emmys, and often being the speaker for on-field ceremonies like Old Timers’ Day, number retirements, and more. He went on to call 5,651 Yankee games (including postseason) and had an Iron-Man-esque 5,060 straight games called from 1989-2019.

And yet, despite all of that, Sterling is mostly remembered for his on-air idioms and personalized home run calls for players. The calls showed his true passion for announcing and his love for the game that his life revolved around. Some notable calls include: “It’s an A-bomb for A-Rod!” (Alex Rodriguez), “A Stantonian home run!” (Giancarlo Stanton), and “Like a good Gleyber, Torres is there!” (Gleyber Torres). Sterling brought his youthful joy to the ballpark every day for years, particularly after a win to which he would exclaim, “Yankees win! Theeeeee, Yankees win!” while shaking his arms emphatically.

Perhaps his most memorable saying would come after a back-and-forth with his longtime broadcast partner, Suzyn Waldman. Waldman, the color commentator to Sterling’s play-by-play, would often describe an interesting or downright weird play in more detail, to which Sterling would respond, “That’s baseball, Suzyn.” The phrase became a staple of his career and came to symbolize more than just baseball but life in general. Baseball is a unique game; any day at the ballfield could be met with a new, never-before-seen experience- Sterling encapsulated this in three words. He could tell you a novel’s worth of information in ten seconds- that was who he was.

Sterling will be missed by fans of the game, but his voice will forever remain in our hearts. There is a poignant irony in “That’s baseball, Suzyn.” He describes baseball’s volatility, while he himself was one sure thing the fans could count on. For nearly 4 decades in the Bronx, John Sterling was a constant, a paperweight if you will, in an ever-changing city. His consistency gave people comfort and caused many to think back on his time with great fondness.

That’s baseball, John. And it was better because you were a part of it.