Players should view themselves as stakeholders in this -- not just employees. They benefit from adopting a better model for growth. MLB top-line revenue growth is badly lagging the other Big Four sports.

MLBPA interim exec director Bruce Meyer holds up the Padres as the example for all teams: "We want to encourage more San Diego's. San Diego is a small market team that went out, decided to compete, signed a lot of players. Turned around their franchise...they are successful. They've grown attendance, they've grown interest, and we've all seen the explosion of their franchise value."

It's important to understand that the 50/50 revenue split with players doesn't incorporate franchise values, says @EvanDrellich. "It's 50/50 in the operating annual balance sheet of a team."

Statement from MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin following the union's opening proposal: "We understand their proposals are designed to benefit players. Unfortunately, they do not address and in fact exacerbate the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us we must address."

The MLBPA's response, in part, to today's proposal: "The owners responded today with a demand for a salary cap system, something generations of players have fought against. The last time the owners made such an explicit push for a cap—over 30 years ago—it led to the longest work stoppage in MLB history. For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, pit player against player, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time. Caps don’t lower ticket prices for fans, eliminate tanking or ensure teams are run with equal competence. They suffocate competition by offering owners an all-purpose excuse for inaction and mediocrity."

MLB proposes the first salary cap since August, 1994, at $245.3 million, with a salary floor of $171.2 million.