How MLB’s Next CBA Could Reshape the Future for the Minnesota Twins

[TJSweens]

51 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Hopefully, the MLBPA pushes the narrative that baseball is thriving and their guys need to stay out of the news as much as possible. Hopefully, the owners recognize that the solutions to their issues is wholly within revenue distribution. There may be some unfortunate statements that come out by each side but the more cordial the negotiations, the better for public relations.

Except that isn't true. Baseball is not thriving. It's declining in popularity. Competitive imbalance is killing interest. Viewership and attendence are dropping. MLB has lost ESPN as a partner after decades on the network. It isn't a matter of just revenue sharing. Baseball needs a more comprehensive change to how it does business. Every other major sport has revenue sharing AND a salary cap. Unlike baseball, they are all growing.

[tony&rodney]

39 minutes ago, Senior Softball Guy said:

Tear the whole thing down. Create a new league with a $500,000 salary cap. The Ohtanis and Judges won't play for that and the talent level would decline, but soon enough you will always fill the rosters with young athletes willing to play baseball for $100,000. When the super payed stars get tired of sitting around the house and coaching the little leaguers they will come back. I love watching players playing for the love of the game. 

Anyone can watch this type of baseball. Take your pick: Little League, Babe Ruth, VFW, high school, college, summer college leagues, minor leagues, Town Ball, Senior Men's League, etc. There are endless choices. I have watched baseball at every one of these levels and if one enjoys baseball it is always an enjoyable time.

Sports can be enjoyed equally at any level. It is entertainment and the enjoyment is always up to the individual watching or attending the games.

If one has an objection to the amount of money earned by the players, that is a different point altogether. Maybe there should be a limit to how many acres, how big of a house, total net worth ceilings, and limits to income in a year for everyone. These types of things are choices and civilizations have been shifting their ideas on that for thousands of years.

Unless one is calling for an entire new social structure tearing down the "whole thing" in baseball doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Things are as good or as bad as one chooses or decides. 

[TNtwins85]

8 minutes ago, TJSweens said:

The answer is both. Teams will not succeed if they can't draft and develop talent. A more equitable distribution of money gives them a chance to keep those players instead of selling them off because they are too expensive.

But why would a player sign that when they know there’s 29 other teams to compete for their services guaranteed in free agency as opposed to maybe 10-15 now?

[saviking]

3 hours ago, Reptevia said:

This will be a mess. 

Good thing about having a bad team is you don't care as much about a long strike. Personable I woukd be will to miss the entire sealing together salary cap like the NFL. THE HIGHEDT PAID PLAYERS WILL PAYBTHE BIGest PRICE. BY FAR ..

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, TJSweens said:

Except that isn't true. Baseball is not thriving. It's declining in popularity. Competitive imbalance is killing interest. Viewership and attendence are dropping. MLB has lost ESPN as a partner after decades on the network. It isn't a matter of just revenue sharing. Baseball needs a more comprehensive change to how it does business. Every other major sport has revenue sharing AND a salary cap. Unlike baseball, they are all growing.

Viewership peaked last season (worldwide) and attendance rose last season. MLB gained NBC as a broadcast partner and has a new partnership with Netflix.

[TJSweens]

1 minute ago, TNtwins85 said:

But why would a player sign that when they know there’s 29 other teams to compete for their services guaranteed in free agency as opposed to maybe 10-15 now?

Because a salary cap will limit what the 29 other teams can offer that player.

[TJSweens]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Viewership peaked last season (worldwide) and attendance rose last season. MLB gained NBC as a broadcast partner and has a new partnership with Netflix.

And the new partnerships don't generate the same level of revenue, especially adjusted for inflation. Research shows baseball's fanbase is aging as younger generations are not as interested. The league needs a comprehensive plan rather than a patchwork of regional revenue streams.

[mikelink45]

This will be interesting and predictions are difficult.  Teams with resources will always take advantage of those elements to rise above the less endowed.  Climate, reputation, expectations will always be big factors in where players choose to go even with a salary cap. 

That does not mean I am against a cap, but my feeling is that if teams are just going to save millions from a cap that money should not just go in the owners pocket.  It should mean lower ticket prices, more funds for the minor leagues and investment in the community rather than asking the community to build their facilities.

[TNtwins85]

6 minutes ago, TJSweens said:

Because a salary cap will limit what the 29 other teams can offer that player.

So maybe only 10-15 teams could realistically compete for that players services?

[mikelink45]

This is not about the contents of the CBA, but the fear that baseball will shoot itself in the foot again - both management and players.  The World Series raised the bar for fan interest after covid, TV contracts and other elements have continually eaten away at baseball's once lofty status.  To have a strike/lockout after next season is such bad timing that I hope there are some intelligent decision makers on all sides. 

[tony&rodney]

7 minutes ago, TJSweens said:

Except that isn't true. Baseball is not thriving. It's declining in popularity. Competitive imbalance is killing interest. Viewership and attendence are dropping. MLB has lost ESPN as a partner after decades on the network. It isn't a matter of just revenue sharing. Baseball needs a more comprehensive change to how it does business. Every other major sport has revenue sharing AND a salary cap. Unlike baseball, they are all growing.

MLB posted record revenues in 2024 and when the numbers come in for 2025 there will be a new record. MLB attendance is strong. Nobody can dispute the financial strength of the NFL and the global strength of basketball will eventually push it past football. However, within North America, an average attendance that sits mostly around 30,000 per game for baseball for 162 games each year for every team allows it to surpass all other sports in attendance. It isn't even close. A number of teams have drawn 3 million fans. Has any NFL team ever drawn 1 million fans? 

Parity? Few MLB teams finish any year with records above 60% or below 40% in terms of winning percentages. The numbers just don't support one sport have better parity than another. I would suggest or guess this is due to many complex factors.

The idea that each sports league should operate in the same manner doesn't make sense to me. They are different and must operate differently. They are all wildly successful.

[terrydactyls]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

Maybe. That’s not the focus though. In what article anywhere on this subject have you heard anything about fans/kids? Nowhere. The answer is nowhere. Which means they’re not thinking about what’s best for the fans, the kids or the game(young talent we could say).  It’s what’s best for the players (high, middle and lower tiered especially) and the owners. Anything else is an after effect. Tell me when the last time was that a multi billion dollar conglomerate came and asked you what you thought about something……

What other players exist beyond "high, middle and lower tiered especially"?

[The Great Hambino]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

OTOH - if the MLB owners change the revenue sharing formula, then there is no need for a salary cap.

 

I think this is 100% false. 

You're just assuming that the teams receiving more revenue sharing will automatically reinvest that into player salaries, and there is no evidence that this is true.  Bob Nutting already sits on what he receives - why wouldn't he just sit on more and make an even bigger profit?  There is no reason to believe that he and others like him will spend it unless forced to.  That means a salary floor, which doesn't happen without a salary cap.

You're proposing taking money from the teams willing to spend and giving it to the teams not willing to spend with no mechanism to force them to spend it.  That is salary suppression, full stop.  The players union would have to be full-on stupid to agree to something like that.

Meaningful increases in revenue sharing and a cap/floor go hand in hand.  They won't work with out the other.

[TNtwins85]

13 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

What other players exist beyond "high, middle and lower tiered especially"?

 

14 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

(young talent we could say)

If teams are forced to spend on high, middle and lower tiered vets to meet a floor that definitely does not benefit younger more attractive in terms of potential and salary type players. Especially when they gutted the minors and the draft last CBA. They did get a higher minimum salary but at the detriment of thousands of players( due to less draft rounds and development leagues) and handfuls of minor league affiliates. Who does that help? Surely not young and upcoming talent. Squeezing teams that rely on young talent to keep up. Sound familiar to any big corporate models since the 90’s? This is a game between the MLB and MLBPA to guarantee more money for veteran players. Any other argument is moot as long as players and owners cry inequity.

[TNtwins85]

11 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I think this is 100% false. 

You're just assuming that the teams receiving more revenue sharing will automatically reinvest that into player salaries, and there is no evidence that this is true.  Bob Nutting already sits on what he receives - why wouldn't he just sit on more and make an even bigger profit?  There is no reason to believe that he and others like him will spend it unless forced to.  That means a salary floor, which doesn't happen without a salary cap.

You're proposing taking money from the teams willing to spend and giving it to the teams not willing to spend with no mechanism to force them to spend it.  That is salary suppression, full stop.  The players union would have to be full-on stupid to agree to something like that.

Meaningful increases in revenue sharing and a cap/floor go hand in hand.  They won't work with out the other.

My question is why does it strictly have to be a cap/floor system? Because this issue has been logically thought out or because that’s the narrative? 

[TNtwins85]

54 minutes ago, saviking said:

Good thing about having a bad team is you don't care as much about a long strike. Personable I woukd be will to miss the entire sealing together salary cap like the NFL. THE HIGHEDT PAID PLAYERS WILL PAYBTHE BIGest PRICE. BY FAR ..

???

[bean5302]

47 minutes ago, TJSweens said:

Except that isn't true. Baseball is not thriving. It's declining in popularity. Competitive imbalance is killing interest. Viewership and attendence are dropping. MLB has lost ESPN as a partner after decades on the network. It isn't a matter of just revenue sharing. Baseball needs a more comprehensive change to how it does business. Every other major sport has revenue sharing AND a salary cap. Unlike baseball, they are all growing.

What's this competitive imbalance you're speaking of?
AL East Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 5/5
AL Central Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 4/5
AL West Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5

NL East Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 4/5
NL Central Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5
NL West Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5

22 of 30 MLB teams have been to the playoffs in the past 3 years.

The AL Championship Series has 0 repeat teams for the past 3 years.
The NL Championship Series has 1 repeat team for the past 3 years.

The World Series has 1 repeat team in the past 3 years and only 2 repeat teams in the past 6 years.
Dodgers x3, Astros x2, Diamondbacks, Rangers, Yankees, Phillies, , Rays, Braves, Blue Jays

[bean5302]

6 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

My question is why does it strictly have to be a cap/floor system? Because this issue has been logically thought out or because that’s the narrative? 

It's because many Twins fans think the Twins aren't winning World Series' because of disparity in expenditures.

Right now, there are multiple ways to be competitive in baseball. The Twins are lousy at all of them.

[TNtwins85]

44 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

MLB posted record revenues in 2024 and when the numbers come in for 2025 there will be a new record. MLB attendance is strong. Nobody can dispute the financial strength of the NFL and the global strength of basketball will eventually push it past football. However, within North America, an average attendance that sits mostly around 30,000 per game for baseball for 162 games each year for every team allows it to surpass all other sports in attendance. It isn't even close. A number of teams have drawn 3 million fans. Has any NFL team ever drawn 1 million fans? 

Parity? Few MLB teams finish any year with records above 60% or below 40% in terms of winning percentages. The numbers just don't support one sport have better parity than another. I would suggest or guess this is due to many complex factors.

The idea that each sports league should operate in the same manner doesn't make sense to me. They are different and must operate differently. They are all wildly successful.

Absolutely!!! When the league and players constantly claim it’s broken and repeat the narrative it’s inevitable to leak and spill out of regular peoples mouths. There’s probably a myriad of ways to fix a problem but if the talking heads repeat a narrative that’s what people hear and repeat.

[DJL44]

29 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

You're just assuming that the teams receiving more revenue sharing will automatically reinvest that into player salaries, and there is no evidence that this is true.  Bob Nutting already sits on what he receives - why wouldn't he just sit on more and make an even bigger profit?  There is no reason to believe that he and others like him will spend it unless forced to.  That means a salary floor, which doesn't happen without a salary cap.

You're proposing taking money from the teams willing to spend and giving it to the teams not willing to spend with no mechanism to force them to spend it.  That is salary suppression, full stop.  The players union would have to be full-on stupid to agree to something like that.

Meaningful increases in revenue sharing and a cap/floor go hand in hand.  They won't work with out the other.

I didn't really propose a meaningful increase in revenue sharing. The Twins would get about $9M more, which would give them the ability to add $4.5M to their budget. I'm proposing changing the financial incentives to reward teams with good attendance and punish teams with bad attendance. The Pirates don't have to spend more money, but they will have empty stadiums and less revenue as a result. They'll also miss out on the postseason windfall.

I think the union should bargain for a $1M minimum salary. That would raise the floor by $5.2M per team.

[The Great Hambino]

30 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

My question is why does it strictly have to be a cap/floor system? Because this issue has been logically thought out or because that’s the narrative? 

Because it has been logically thought out.

Increased revenue sharing will not be reinvested into player salaries by those at the bottom without a mechanism forcing them to spend it - ie a floor.  That mechanism doesn't have to explicitly be a % tied to a hard cap, but whatever mechanism that will be will enforce a minimum level of spending.

A floor or something like it would be a major concession by the owners.  This concession would not be allowed unless they were getting something substantial in return.  The most likely thing this would be is a limitation on player salaries - ie a cap.

So meaningful revenue sharing doesn't come without a floor, and a floor doesn't come without a cap

[TNtwins85]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I didn't really propose a meaningful increase in revenue sharing. The Twins would get about $9M more, which would give them the ability to add $4.5M to their budget. I'm proposing changing the financial incentives to reward teams with good attendance and punish teams with bad attendance. The Pirates don't have to spend more money, but they will have empty stadiums and less revenue as a result. They'll also miss out on the postseason windfall.

I think the union should bargain for a $1M minimum salary. That would raise the floor by $5.2M per team.

This seems reasonable. I would love for teams to be forced to show their developmental budgets and forced to spend a certain amount of their shared revenue on development. More prepared, developed and higher talent level prospects helps the game itself. Being forced to spend more money and forced to only spend a certain amount only forces mediocre players to be guaranteed salaries when a more talented player in the minors might not get the chance. Talent should be the goal. Not paying owners and mediocre players which is what a cap/floor system incentivizes. Am I the only one seeing this? Lol

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Doc Lenz said:

Or Gasper should pay the Twins to be on the roster.

I don't think he makes enough.

[TNtwins85]

7 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Because it has been logically thought out.

Increased revenue sharing will not be reinvested into player salaries by those at the bottom without a mechanism forcing them to spend it - ie a floor.  That mechanism doesn't have to explicitly be a % tied to a hard cap, but whatever mechanism that will be will enforce a minimum level of spending.

A floor or something like it would be a major concession by the owners.  This concession would not be allowed unless they were getting something substantial in return.  The most likely thing this would be is a limitation on player salaries - ie a cap.

So meaningful revenue sharing doesn't come without a floor, and a floor doesn't come without a cap

So more Severino type deals? Is that what grows the game and creates more parity? Or does it simply guarantee more overpaid , mediocre, aging veterans?

[old nurse]

Revenue sharing will be a difficult thing to change. For the high value teams it is the revenue or the potential for revenue that drives the price up. There was an article behind a paywall that said in the headline that the Dodgers generated over 1 billion in revenue after revenue sharing, the tram revenue was somewhere around 780 million. Increasing the revenue sharing  decreases the value of the clubs. The teams at the top of the revenue sharing are going tp want something in return for changing the system. 

[Heiny]

2 hours ago, saviking said:

Good thing about having a bad team is you don't care as much about a long strike. Personable I woukd be will to miss the entire sealing together salary cap like the NFL. THE HIGHEDT PAID PLAYERS WILL PAYBTHE BIGest PRICE. BY FAR ..

Ok dude,  please don't drive.  Put the bottle back on the shelf and hit the sack.

[TJSweens]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

What's this competitive imbalance you're speaking of?
AL East Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 5/5
AL Central Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 4/5
AL West Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5

NL East Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 4/5
NL Central Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5
NL West Teams having made the playoffs last 3 years. 3/5

22 of 30 MLB teams have been to the playoffs in the past 3 years.

The AL Championship Series has 0 repeat teams for the past 3 years.
The NL Championship Series has 1 repeat team for the past 3 years.

The World Series has 1 repeat team in the past 3 years and only 2 repeat teams in the past 6 years.
Dodgers x3, Astros x2, Diamondbacks, Rangers, Yankees, Phillies, , Rays, Braves, Blue Jays

Keep the context at a high enough level and it almost looks in balance. How many of those 22 teams had meaningful playoff appearances and how many nabbed last spots and were out right away? Are you really going to point a 3 year sample as your big aha?

[Gamblerssoftball]

2 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

How's this for a conspiracy theory...

Ownership made a deal with the new minority owners that basically said "we sell you a minority of the club to help pay off our debts.  You get to be minority owners with an agreement that you will be majority owners after the CBA".

The Pohlads take the heat for a bare bones payroll for 2026/2027 and the minority owners never get identified so they take no arrows for this approach.

The Pohlads get the increased value of the org generated by the new CBA when they sell the rest of the equity to the minority owners.  The minority owners get majority ownership and all future gain-in-value of the organization plus a much more competitive environment to compete in.

Both ownership groups win.  We as fans take a temporary hit with lower payroll in 2026/2027 until after the CBA and new ownership gets stabilized (possibly by 2028) after which we as fans win also with a better team and much better owners.

Once the minority owners are approved, their identity will become public. That cat will get out of the bag.

[Jim wyllie]

A salary cap and floor are absolutely necessary, the big issue is there are teams in mlb spending as much on 26 player that nfl teams spend on 53.  It makes no mathematical sense.  Some players are too greedy and none of them make a big enough impact on a team to even warrant making $30 million a year

[Fatbat]

3 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

Maybe. That’s not the focus though. In what article anywhere on this subject have you heard anything about fans/kids? Nowhere. The answer is nowhere. Which means they’re not thinking about what’s best for the fans, the kids or the game(young talent we could say).  It’s what’s best for the players (high, middle and lower tiered especially) and the owners. Anything else is an after effect. Tell me when the last time was that a multi billion dollar conglomerate came and asked you what you thought about something……

Just filled out a survey/feedback on/for transamerica insurance website this morning. It absolutely sucks and I obliterated it in my feedback. Zero stars. I do not recommend.