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

[bean5302]

2 minutes ago, TopGunn#22 said:

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 MLB owners are absolutely trying to sow dissent in the union. I feel like the owners proposal is more pandering to fans than the 90% of MLB/MiLB players in the first offer, though.

The salary cap/floor is the piece which will be the most difficult hurdle to get over, and I think getting the framework in place will let the rest of the pieces fall into place.

In regard to the second paragraph, the Royals already locked Witt, Jr. up for 11 years, but the MLBPA will be pushing for maximum flexibility when players want it, and minimum flexibility for teams. The MLBPA won't want anything which makes it so the Pirates have some sort of advantage to keeping Skenes, for example. Skenes should be able to choose where he wants to play, and nobody wants to play in Pittsburgh (at least right now).

MLBPA's dream is every single contract is fully guaranteed, has a full NTC, and every single year of a contract is a player opt out at any time during the year and the ability to negotiate with other teams while under contract, etc.

[NYCTK]

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. 

We haven't seen all the details but there's nothing really in it to help the average player. 

I see it resulting in a lot of inflated 1-2 year deals for the middle tier free agents with no effect on the team controlled players. 

2 hours ago, Old Twins Hat said:

I've seen this before where salary negotiations are pegged on the highest flyers and the others get scraps. 

The players offer doubled rookie salaries. The owners offer doesn't do anything for them, at least at first glance. 

1 hour ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

 

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

This is putting it mildly. The players flatly reject the owners offer. And they're right to do so. Especially with the owners cute wording of their offer, which more honestly presents a payroll cap of $225 Million and a floor of $150 Million.

I've been saying for a year or more now, there will be no salary cap, and I am still certain of that. The first cap offer is a joke, and the owners are going to be fighting dirty by propagandizing the fans. But at the end of the day, the owners are greedy greedy snakes and they will blink when it comes time to actually start cutting into their revenue. 

1 hour ago, Linus said:

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

It's still DOA. 

1 hour ago, amjgt said:

I think that was part of the proposal.

1.5M

That was the players proposal, not the owners. 

58 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.

Yes, and also to try to start the propaganda battle to get the fans behind them as well. 

35 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

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.

This is why this showdown was ALWAYS going to be owner versus owner more than owner versus player. Any drastic changes we see will be on the owner side, with very little impact on the players. 

25 minutes ago, amjgt said:

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%.

Players are stupid, but not that stupid. The owners don't care about the lowest paid players and this offer doesn't help them. And the players union reps are voted on by the players, including those 75% that are under team control and currently under suppressed earnings.