A lockout is coming, as you might have heard, and so very many issues are at play in collective bargaining between Major League Baseball’s players and owners. We asked what you wanted to know about the situation; here are answers to nine of your questions on the off-field drama.By the way, MLB and the Players Association were both given an opportunity to respond to these questions themselves. MLB declined the opportunity, while the union offered comments on two questions.Fear not: I, your friendly neighborhood baseball labor writer, filled the void while blasting Bryce Pinkham’s version of “The Arbiter.”Questions have been lightly edited for clarity.Do the majority of players actually like the current system? It seems like this is a system that really benefits the top 10 percent but not the majority of players. But the top players have the loudest voices and carry the most weight, so you only ever hear their perspective and that’s the water the union will carry. I’m curious if the majority of players would rather overhaul the system and are just muzzled essentially — Billy J. Really light stuff to start out with, thanks, Billy.I haven’t conducted a scientific poll, but players largely support a meritocracy: the best get paid the most. Whether they should or shouldn’t believe that, you can decide on your own, but that’s the starting point.At the same time, the players who are not the best of the best would also love to be paid more. They do want change.The question for them is, what’s the right overhaul?The league would say a salary cap, and the union would counter that a cap would almost never be an improvement, and that there are plenty of better alternatives.Let’s assume that the league will always be willing to pay players a higher minimum salary in a cap system. If you’re a young player, it becomes a question of trade-offs: well, how much higher is that minimum salary? Is it a notable amount compared to what you would otherwise receive? And what did you give away to get it? Do you care about the impacts on your peers?The union position is that a cap is so onerous that a corollary gain in one area is almost never going to make the switch worth it. A cap does much more than just limit team salary: it’s a sea change with really wide-reaching effects.But, Billy, reality is you’re touching on something that will be the crux of the league’s push for a cap. If MLB is going to flip players to its worldview, it has to convince some of them that a cap is actually good for them.It’s trying.And the union, as you’ll glean from the following quote, has to continue to demonstrate to players that there are better ways to achieve the changes players want than what the league is peddling.“Our priorities are to increase compensation and opportunity for players at all levels and in all categories,” Bruce Meyer, the interim head of the Players Association, said in response to this question. “In the last round of bargaining, the players who benefited the most monetarily were the youngest players, not the stars, because the union fought and achieved record increases in minimum salaries and for the establishment of the new pre-arb bonus pool.“Our current proposals continue to provide record increases in the minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool for the youngest players, would result in more money for arbitration-eligible players, and would incentivize and reward teams who compete, benefitting free agents of all types.”How united are the 30 ownership groups on the strategy for this lockout? The small and large market teams have radically different incentives, and are very differently situated in what they have to lose or gain. A small-market team like the Rays could wind up having to spend *more* to hit the floor. How long into the winter and spring will the owners remain in lockstep? — Alex R.Let’s take the second part of your question first, about smaller markets spending to the floor.In the big picture, a salary cap benefits all teams. Franchise values would go up across the board. But there are two other effects: cost savings and redistribution.As the league proposed it, a cap would reduce overall player compensation. Between MLB player salaries and amateur signing bonuses, players in 2026 will receive more than 55 percent of the pie, the union estimates (which is a slightly higher estimate than the union offered earlier this year).MLB’s cap proposal would drop the players’ percentage, so teams would save overall. Then, from there, the money gets moved around in a cap system. All local TV income would be newly shared equally. That would allow the Rays and other small-market teams to reach the floor.Keep in mind: if a cap was an awful outcome for a bunch of small-market teams, MLB wouldn’t have proposed it.Now, let’s talk about unity.At every moment in this negotiation, both sides are incentivized to project only strength. It’s expected that players and owners will say things like, “we’ve never been more united.” Why would they say anything different? (And if they did say something different, well, make sure to let me know.)Which means, when you hear things like, “we’ve never been more united,” it could be true — but it’s not true just because someone said it. They’re always going to say as much.So, are the owners really united?They seem to be, yes, but here’s the rub: it just doesn’t mean much right now.The owners might believe with every bone in their collective bodies that they are willing to miss an entire season or more — whatever it takes to get to a salary cap. The players, too, might believe the same on their end, that they’ll fight as long as they need.But what matters is how they’ll feel when checks are on the line. At that point, the sides will have to stay strong every day. And no one actually knows whether they will.So much vitriol will be directed at both sides if games are missed. Fans, media partners, sponsors and politicians (likely including the president) will be hammering away at players and owners to get a deal done. Everyone’s bank accounts will start to ache, even with funds put aside.Heck, financial situations can change independent of a lockout: ask Los Angeles Dodgers owner Mark Walter.Bottom line: It’s one thing to say you’ll miss games, and another to actually do so.History says owners will cave on a cap before the players do. Could this time be different? I don’t know, and right now, neither do they.