How the Twins Can Get to MLB’s Proposed Salary Floor

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of Jesse Johnson, Matt Krohn, Bill Streicher-Imagn Images

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association appear headed for another lengthy negotiation cycle, and the league’s latest proposal added fuel to the fire. MLB’s initial economic proposal for the next Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included the framework for both a salary cap and a salary floor, a concept that has long been discussed around the sport but never implemented.

Under the proposal, teams would be required to meet a minimum payroll threshold, while also staying below a maximum spending limit. The league says the structure would improve competitive balance while also encouraging clubs to invest more heavily in their major-league rosters. (They're pointedly not saying that it would allow them to define "baseball revenue" and wall off a greater portion of what they make from each other and from players, or the biggest reason for wanting a cap: cost certainty that would be worth tens of millions per year in rising franchise values.)

The proposed floor for 2027 would sit at $171.2 million. Based on current Opening Day payroll projections, a dozen teams would need to increase spending to comply with the new rules. According to FanGraphs, the Twins currently have a $107 million payroll, leaving Minnesota more than $64 million short of the proposed floor.

That creates an interesting question. If this proposal eventually becomes reality, how could the Twins realistically add that much payroll? The answer is that there are several ways to get there, and some of them could actually strengthen the organization’s long-term outlook.

Lock Up the Current Core
The easiest way for Minnesota to add payroll responsibly would be by extending players already in the clubhouse. Joe Ryan immediately stands out as one of the organization’s most logical extension candidates. He has developed into one of the American League’s steadiest starters, and front offices around baseball are always looking for controllable pitching. That reality also means Ryan could become a trade deadline target for other clubs if the Twins fall out of contention. Minnesota must decide whether it views him as part of the next competitive window or as a trade asset.

Ryan Jeffers falls into a similar category. Catchers with offensive upside are difficult to replace, and while his production has fluctuated at times, Jeffers remains one of the better offensive catchers in the league when healthy. Extending him would provide some stability behind the plate, while also raising payroll organically.

Then there is Pablo López, whose situation may be the most fascinating of the group. López is recovering from Tommy John surgery and has only one year of team control remaining. Normally, pitchers approaching free agency after a major surgery carry substantial risk, but that risk can also create an opportunity for a team-friendly extension. If Minnesota believes López can return to form, it may be able to negotiate a deal that adds multiple seasons at a more manageable annual value than a healthy frontline starter would command on the open market.

Rather than viewing extensions strictly as financial burdens, the Twins could use them to create certainty around a roster core, while simultaneously moving closer to the salary floor.

Bet on Young Pitching Before the Price Explodes
Across baseball, teams have become increasingly aggressive about extending young pitchers before they fully establish themselves at the major-league level. The Twins could follow that blueprint.

Taj Bradley already looks like a potential long-term rotation fixture. His power arsenal gives Minnesota something it has lacked consistently near the top of the rotation, and if he continues trending upward, his arbitration years could become expensive quickly. An extension now could save the organization money in the long run while also helping boost payroll in the short term.

Connor Prielipp and Mick Abel are more complicated cases because of their injury histories, but both possess legitimate upside. Pitching is expensive on the open market, and teams willing to take calculated risks on talented young arms can sometimes create tremendous surplus value. Minnesota has historically operated carefully in this space. If a salary floor becomes reality, the Twins may need to become more proactive about buying out arbitration and free-agent years before prices escalate.

Join Baseball’s Pre-Arbitration Extension Movement
One of the biggest trends around baseball has been teams extending players before they even establish themselves in the major leagues. Clubs are increasingly willing to guarantee money early in exchange for long-term cost certainty and additional years of team control. The Twins have mostly stayed away from these types of contracts (sure, they signed Jorge Polanco and Max Kepler, but that was a long time ago, now), but that may need to change.

Kaelen Culpepper could make a great deal of sense as a candidate, if Minnesota believes he's a long-term answer somewhere in the infield. He offers athleticism, defensive versatility, and a skill set that could age well. Walker Jenkins and Emmanuel Rodriguez possess enormous ceilings, but both players carry obvious injury risks. That uncertainty could actually create an opening for Minnesota. If the organization still believes either player can become a foundational star, a creative extension could protect the player financially while giving the Twins a chance at massive long-term value.

These deals are becoming increasingly common because they allow teams to spend aggressively without necessarily diving headfirst into free agency. For a club attempting to reach a salary floor while maintaining long-term flexibility, this approach may become essential.

Make Byron Buxton a Twin for Life
There are certain players who define an era of Twins baseball, and Buxton unquestionably fits into that category. When healthy, Buxton remains one of the most electric players in baseball. His combination of defense, speed, and power still changes games in ways very few players can replicate. More importantly, he has become one of the faces of the franchise.

If Minnesota is eventually required to spend significantly more money, keeping Buxton in a Twins uniform through the remainder of his career should become a priority. Even with the injury concerns, there is value in maintaining continuity and rewarding a player who has remained loyal to the organization throughout his career.

The Twins have often struggled to keep star-level talent long term. Ensuring Buxton retires in Minnesota would send a meaningful message about the franchise's direction.

Finally, Invest Real Money in the Bullpen
The bullpen has too often been treated like a clearance rack project. Minnesota has consistently attempted to patch together relief groups through waiver claims, minor-league signings, and bounce-back candidates. Occasionally, that strategy works. More often, it leaves the bullpen lacking reliable late-inning options.

If the Twins suddenly need to add tens of millions of dollars to payroll, the relief market provides one of the easiest opportunities to do so quickly. Elite relievers are expensive, but they also dramatically improve roster stability.

Adding proven bullpen arms would not only help Minnesota reach the proposed salary floor but address one of the organization’s most persistent weaknesses. The Twins do not necessarily need to hand out reckless contracts, but they can no longer operate as though every bullpen spot should be filled through bargain hunting.

Right now, MLB’s salary cap-and-floor proposal remains exactly that: a proposal. There is still a long road before any new CBA becomes a reality, and the players union has already made clear that it detests the idea of a cap. Still, the concept forces teams like the Twins into an uncomfortable but fascinating discussion. If Minnesota were suddenly required to spend another $64 million, the organization could no longer rely exclusively on short-term fixes and payroll restraint.

The encouraging part for Twins fans is that there are logical ways to add that spending without abandoning the future. Extensions for core veterans, aggressive deals with young talent, long-term commitments to franchise players, and meaningful bullpen investments could all help bridge the gap.

For years, fans have begged ownership to act more aggressively. A salary floor might eventually force the issue.

---

How would the Twins spend the money needed to get to the salary floor? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[FlyingFinn]

The Twins wouldn't have had to invest $ in the bullpen if they just kept Varland. With a closer, this crew in the pen appears like they could handle the other innings (can't believe I'm saying that). But if Rojas turns into a stud starter, I was wrong about the trade. 

[DJL44]

Or they can just take on a bad contract from a team that needs to get under the cap

[DJL44]

I haven’t seen any details of the proposed revenue sharing changes. Cap and floor is pointless without changes to revenue sharing.

[jmlease1]

The only real issue with a salary floor from a Twins fan perspective is if too many teams need to meet it in a single season without enough teams needing to get under a cap is that you could end up with a lot of big contracts going out to players that simply aren't that good. But I love a system where the Twins would have bigger annual budget and incentives to re-sign a pitcher like Joe Ryan rather than deal him.

As a general rule, I would rather more money go to the millionaire players than the billionaire owners, but what I really want as a fan is for better revenue sharing so that certain teams don't have massive financial advantages based on their geography. Strong revenue sharing is part of what makes the NFL work so well, and why Green Bay can compete effectively with NY or LA to sign free agents, retain players, etc. Now, the overall model for the NFL is different (fewer games, all tv rights controlled nationally, local revenue less relevant, etc) but it doesn't mean that you can't design one for MLB where most if not all teams can be operating in a similar band of budget for players without gifting the owners millions and millions of dollars in instant profits regardless of how competently they run their franchises.

This Twins roster would look so much better if we were sitting at $150M right now; we'd have some real bullpen arms to supplement the young guys we're trying out, the lineup would have added a bigger/better bat than Bell for 1B/DH, Outman never makes the roster, etc. And Keeping Joe Ryan would be a much more realistic option...which also increases his trade value because other teams can't just keep sending lowball offers knowing you need to move him.

I'm interested in a cap & floor system. you have to yank the bottom 10 up and find a way to pull revenue off the absurd spend of teams like the Mets and Dodgers.

[Patzky]

Another added benefit of the forced increase in payroll would be the deliciously bad taste it would leave in the Pohlads' mouths,. Perhaps speeding a sale.

[bean5302]

Or the Twins could choose to get to the $174MM floor using better players than they have rather than just extending all the guys on the roster.

[Jeff K]

I do think that step one is securing the Twins top pitchers longer term.  Step 2 is ensuring the Twins only invest in more athletic (read better defensive) players.  If those players are on the farm or elsewhere, that should be their 2nd priority.

[Old Twins Hat]

I think MLB players really need to think this through.  A cap and floor system would help salaries for a lot of players, not just the superstars. 

I've seen this before where salary negotiations are pegged on the highest flyers and the others get scraps.  Not every player is going to be a mega-millionaire, but if they have a high salary while they are in the league, that is worth something to them and their people.

I, for one, am sick of seeing the Yankees and Dodgers loaded with all-stars, all making bank, while the other teams are full of has beens, never weres, and young inexperienced players who just can't get it done.  And then, when a player breaks through and becomes a star, they get kicked upstairs to the Dodgers, robbing out of the way teams of a truly great player.

[Original_JB]

The issue with this concept is throwing all this extra money into the player pool is that it doesn't come along with a bunch of "better" players. It's not like there's a ton of guys "holding out" and not playing because they aren't making what they think is fair. Now I'm certainly not against the players getting "their fair share" or anything like that, but ultimately, nothing about the "quality of play" will change. There's just too much room from the proposed floor to the proposed cap, and if they don't do something about deferred payments, that's just another "workaround" for any proposed changes.  Again, not against players getting paid, but until there's truly "open books" I just don't think this will work out they way they think it will.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

25 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

The issue with this concept is throwing all this extra money into the player pool is that it doesn't come along with a bunch of "better" players. It's not like there's a ton of guys "holding out" and not playing because they aren't making what they think is fair. Now I'm certainly not against the players getting "their fair share" or anything like that, but ultimately, nothing about the "quality of play" will change. There's just too much room from the proposed floor to the proposed cap, and if they don't do something about deferred payments, that's just another "workaround" for any proposed changes.  Again, not against players getting paid, but until there's truly "open books" I just don't think this will work out they way they think it will.

The League (not necessarily the Owners) wants to change the incentive structure for the teams. Sharing TV revenue equally means the way to earn more money is getting fans in the seats.

Today, revenue sharing model incents teams outside of the top tier, to not try to win. The murky middle loses the most in our current model which is largely why the mlb is failing. The murky middle is where competition should be the strongest!

the ceiling gives the top end owners a reason to sign on, the floor gives the players something to sign on to.

while the two sides are a loooong way apart, I’m encouraged in the direction.

edit to add, throwing more money into the player pool will be interesting. Will there be more or less service time shenanigans? Will the top end contracts get bigger relative to the league like quarterbacks in the NFL? Will players reach free agency more or less frequently?

[SteveLV]

I think the MLB proposal is certainly a step in the right direction.

BUT:

1) They have to agree to open their books so the Players know what they are negotiating;

2)  There has to be FULL revenue sharing based on 1;

3)  I would prefer a tighter "gap" between the ceiling and floor similar to the NFL;

4)  They have to figure out what to do with existing deferred contracts--reducing them to present value makes the most sense logically;

5)  Compromise and raise the minimum salary floor to the $1.5M figure the players want.  That will garner a LOT of votes from the players union if hundreds of players suddenly double their income in their early years in the league;

6)  Raise the base salaries for MiLB players, too;

7)  Probably makes sense to cut down the maximum length of contracts, too, although this one the Players will really not like.

This would be an EXCITING change to MLB and restore competitiveness.  I hope and pray they can get something like this done.

If the Players end up with more guaranteed money in their collective pockets, the Owners should be able to fashion a deal that is fair to both sides and get it approved.

[Linus]

Will be interesting to see the response from the players association. In the past, any proposed cap was DOA. 

[Riverbrian]

If the players association agrees to this. I hope they do

It will get interesting on both ends of the spectrum. 

Yes the Twins and other clubs will be required to increase payroll. However... the Dodgers and Mets and others are going to have to seriously decrease payroll. 

The Dodgers are going to have to figure out how to trade Mookie Betts to Minnesota or Pittsburgh or Tampa or wherever.

Normally a contract like Betts with 7 years left and 233 million to pay out for a 33 year old would be close to unmovable at least not for any significant value unless the Dodgers ate a bunch of money.   

Could the big contract turn into a bidding war as team try to get up to the floor as the Dodgers are forced to give up significant talent and with multiple teams desperate to reach the floor? 

Is it possible... that teams will need to pay more to acquire larger contracts. 

I don't know but the push pull from both sides of the ledger is certainly going to be interesting. 

[amjgt]

Any agent who has a client that will be a free agent this offseason should be fired if they have that player sign an extension. 

Under normal circumstances that is a very high bar to clear; offering enough money that it's not worth waiting a couple months to be able to negotiate with 30 team, but in an offseason that could very easily have 15 teams that HAVE to spend a ton of money, that bar is in the stratosphere. 

[amjgt]

Just now, Riverbrian said:

 

Yes the Twins and other clubs will be required to increase payroll. However... the Dodgers and Mets and others are going to have to seriously decrease payroll. 

The Dodgers are going to have to figure out how to trade Mookie Betts to Minnesota or Pittsburgh or Tampa or wherever.

 

I'm working under the assumption that 
a) There will be a couple year window for teams to get compliant, and 
b) There will be some sort of grandfathering in of current contracts, which is why the Dodgers have seemingly been even more aggressive than normal, bringing in mega contracts the last few seasons.

[um_stevenel]

Wondering if they could just raise the amount they pay the minimum and arbitration eligible players - $2 million extra per player in arbitration or pre-arbitration would add up quickly and wouldn’t commit beyond one year. 

[amjgt]

3 minutes ago, um_stevenel said:

Wondering if they could just raise the amount they pay the minimum and arbitration eligible players - $2 million extra per player in arbitration or pre-arbitration would add up quickly and wouldn’t commit beyond one year. 

I think that was part of the proposal.

1.5M

[amjgt]

I propose we sign Buxton to a 4 year 85M extension that pays him:
$81M in 2027
$1M in 2028
$1M in 2029
$1M in 2030

That'll get us compliant and set us up for spending a bunch the next offseason

I'm only partially kidding. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

I haven’t seen any details of the proposed revenue sharing changes. Cap and floor is pointless without changes to revenue sharing.

The one I saw was all local-media revenue would be shared.

[Riverbrian]

29 minutes ago, amjgt said:

I'm working under the assumption that 
a) There will be a couple year window for teams to get compliant, and 
b) There will be some sort of grandfathering in of current contracts, which is why the Dodgers have seemingly been even more aggressive than normal, bringing in mega contracts the last few seasons.

I have the same assumption.

They would have to walk in... not run. 

[LewFordLives]

34 minutes ago, Linus said:

Will be interesting to see the response from the players association. In the past, any proposed cap was DOA. 

I think we all know the answer to this. There will be no cap, and so there will be no floor, or at least no floor at the levels being talked about.

Even if there was a floor, there would be no way they could start enforcement in 2027. Any agreement probably won't happen until the spring, and so there is no way teams would have time to become compliant.  My guess is MLB just threw 2027 out there to get some of the players to start seeing dollar signs and to cause fractures in the union.

[chpettit19]

44 minutes ago, Linus said:

Will be interesting to see the response from the players association. In the past, any proposed cap was DOA. 

MLBPA interim director Bruce Meyer: “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.”

5 minutes ago, LewFordLives said:

I think we all know the answer to this. There will be no cap, and so there will be no floor, or at least no floor at the levels being talked about.

Even if there was a floor, there would be no way they could start enforcement in 2027. Any agreement probably won't happen until the spring, and so there is no way teams would have time to become compliant.  My guess is MLB just threw 2027 out there to get some of the players to start seeing dollar signs and to cause fractures in the union.

The players had made their proposal the day before. It has a "soft floor" at 50% of the luxury tax number. Floor at 150 million and luxury tax at 300 million. Anyone below the floor would have penalties similar to those above the luxury tax threshold.

[Linus]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

MLBPA interim director Bruce Meyer: “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.”

The players had made their proposal the day before. It has a "soft floor" at 50% of the luxury tax number. Floor at 150 million and luxury tax at 300 million. Anyone below the floor would have penalties similar to those above the luxury tax threshold.

Thanks for this info. Unfortunately as I suspected. 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, SteveLV said:

I think the MLB proposal is certainly a step in the right direction.

BUT:

1) They have to agree to open their books so the Players know what they are negotiating;

2)  There has to be FULL revenue sharing based on 1;

3)  I would prefer a tighter "gap" between the ceiling and floor similar to the NFL;

4)  They have to figure out what to do with existing deferred contracts--reducing them to present value makes the most sense logically;

5)  Compromise and raise the minimum salary floor to the $1.5M figure the players want.  That will garner a LOT of votes from the players union if hundreds of players suddenly double their income in their early years in the league;

6)  Raise the base salaries for MiLB players, too;

7)  Probably makes sense to cut down the maximum length of contracts, too, although this one the Players will really not like.

This would be an EXCITING change to MLB and restore competitiveness.  I hope and pray they can get something like this done.

If the Players end up with more guaranteed money in their collective pockets, the Owners should be able to fashion a deal that is fair to both sides and get it approved.

1. There's a general idea of what MLB makes, combined, in terms of revenue. I don't think it's particularly valuable or warranted for MLB to "open their books" considering MLBPA was happy to make their proposal without books being opened. Aside from that, how many thousands of hours of review would it take to truly get to the bottom of detailed accounting records for 30 companies, all with different owners operating in different states, each bringing in hundreds of millions in revenue? I don't see how a detailed financial audit of MLB by the MLBPA would be valuable.

2. I'm not sure how much more revenue you think there is to share (with the TV revenue being included) or why MLBPA would care if there was full revenue sharing. They currently don't care. I also think this is counter-productive. There should be incentive for trying to make a good game day experience, and I think teams who work to provide a good experience would be vehemently opposed to funding teams like the Twins who suck at it. That said, I think a 100% revenue share is required if there is a tight floor/ceiling because there has to be one from a math standpoint.

3. I don't actually care about the gap. I don't think the MLBPA cares about the gap, either. I care about competitive balance, and forcing a tight floor and ceiling hasn't improved competitive balance in any of the sports. It seems to put teams into a long term competitive position (either good or bad).

4. Deferred contracts are already reduced to NPV at a rate of 4%, if I recall.

5. I don't think MLB cares about the minimum. You could make the minimum $5MM, but it would mean big contracts would be moved to the endangered species list. The MLBPA would absolutely hate this.

6. I don't think MLB cares about the MiLB minimum, either. The MLBPA needs to balance where they want the money to go. If MLB teams spend more on the minors, they can't spend as much on MLB players. I think there is a general lack of understanding by fans of compensation for MiLB players.

7. I don't think it's necessary to consider the max length of contracts allowed. Contract length is dictated by market experience. We've already seen contract length tightening as a result of some bad big contracts. A salary cap will quicken the adjustment.

Other than the Dodgers in recent seasons, the competitive balance in MLB is excellent, IMHO. Certainly better than NHL/NBA/NFL which have seen a decade of dynasties where 1-2 teams in a league basically make the championship series/game every single year.

[Sampson5]

I hope it passes tbh for no other reason then pohlads be forced to have a regular payroll instead of being able to slash it every off-season probably get them to sell the team quickly we can hope anyway 

 

[amjgt]

35 minutes ago, LewFordLives said:

My guess is MLB just threw 2027 out there to get some of the players to start seeing dollar signs and to cause fractures in the union.

That definitely seems like the owners mostly likely path to success.

Get the bottom 75% of players (Arb and pre-arb guys) asking the top 10% why they get to make all of the decisions and why those decision always seem to benefit the 10% and ignore the 75%.

[TopGunn#22]

I think the owners made a shrewd move in the Public Relations War by getting this out there this early.  It is most certainly going to get more ugly.  But this is an excellent piece by Cody that points out a number of things that should be viewed as a positive to Twins fans.  And this should also be looked upon favorably by other fan bases.  Here are a couple of examples:

The Guardian-Indians absolutely need to pair Jose Ramirez with another STAR caliber player.  The Royals absolutely need to retain Bobby Witt Jr.  The Tigers should absolutely be able to retain back to back Cy Young winner Tarik Skubal.  The Pirates should be able to build around Skenes, Griffin and Bubba Chandler.   

The Devil is in the Details, but I'm fairly certain any agreement with a cap and floor would need to be phased in over 3 or so.  You can't take a wrecking ball to the situation and just expect immediate and total compliance. 

But, for as dead set as the MLBPA is against a cap and floor, how loyal would their rank and file be if you could maintain paying the superstars big money (like the NFL does with QB's or the NBA does with "Max Contracts) while raising the minimum MLB salary as well as some higher level minor league salary structures.  If fans in Pittsburgh could have a sense that Skenes and Griffin could (and would) be long term cornerstones of their franchise, I think that's GOOD for baseball.  

If miserly owners like the Pohlad's would be terrified at a $175 million dollar salary FLOOR and this would "motivate" them to sell SOONER rather than LATER, I think 90% of Twins Daily would be in favor.

Baseball needs a new financial structure.  I wouldn't expect it to be a magic pill that fixes everything, but I would appreciate small market teams being able to keep their star studded core together longer, much like the Big Red Machine or Pittsburg Pirates of the 1970's did.  

The Dodgers will always be the Dodgers, but maybe they get back to the 5 consecutive Rookies of the Year (1992-1996) or the 4 consecutive (1979-1982) instead of buying every All Star they can get their hands on.  The Yankees will always be the Yankees. 

But a Twins team that rewards Buxton with an extension, does the same to Joe Ryan (and probably Pablo) and spends to bring a true Closer on board to build a bullpen around, while getting ready to welcome Walker Jenkins, E-Rod, Culpepper and Houston to the ballclub in the near future is a team I can get excited about.  

[saviking]

2 hours ago, Old Twins Hat said:

I think MLB players really need to think this through.  A cap and floor system would help salaries for a lot of players, not just the superstars. 

I've seen this before where salary negotiations are pegged on the highest flyers and the others get scraps.  Not every player is going to be a mega-millionaire, but if they have a high salary while they are in the league, that is worth something to them and their people.

I, for one, am sick of seeing the Yankees and Dodgers loaded with all-stars, all making bank, while the other teams are full of has beens, never weres, and young inexperienced players who just can't get it done.  And then, when a player breaks through and becomes a star, they get kicked upstairs to the Dodgers, robbing out of the way teams of a truly great player.

100% agree. So much so, that I'm willing to cancel next year if it makes it so. Short term pain for long term gain. 

And making the Polads spend more money is a good thing. But part of the proposal is for all TV revenue from all markets get spread evenly so I would assume a good chunk of the money Minnesota spends to reach the cap will come from the pool. 

The NFL and NBA are a better product due to salary cap. 

[JBK]

 According to Baseball Reference, the Twins have 13 players making $1.1 million or more.  That leaves 13 players making league minimum (or so).  If the players adopted the salcap and the owners increased the league minimum to $1.5M or better, wouldn't everyone benefit from that?  Of the 780 players currently on the MLB rosters, only a handful are going to get that huge contract.  Spreading the money around at the lower end would benefit more players than the current system.  They really need to consider it.