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

[NYCTK]

43 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

MLB is at $245/$171 and MLBPA is at $300/$150. That is not very far apart at all.

Reminder the 245/171 does not include the 20m or so of ancillary player spending, meaning the realistic payroll cap/floor they proposed is $225m/$150m. 

Once you make that adjustment and realize the difference between hard and soft caps you realize how far apart they two camps are. 

[TheLeviathan]

59 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It is a very good sign that the owners first proposal had full TV revenue sharing in it. That alone could save the 2027 season.

Now the only thing to argue about is how hard/soft the ceiling and floor are and what numbers to put on them. 

MLB is at $245/$171 and MLBPA is at $300/$150. That is not very far apart at all.

That's what should be happening, I agree.  But so long as these are not "hard" then I'm not sure it matters much.  Allowing a soft cap/floor only invites shenanigans no matter which end (cap or floor) they allow it.

The revenue sharing is huge and people should remember that leagues are national.  Hyper-localizing revenues is a detriment to the overall health of the league. From a player's perspective, they should want more pooled resources to have more access to those revenues.  The more the revenues stay localized, the less likely it is to be shared.  (With anyone - players, owners, or fans)

[DJL44]

17 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Reminder the 245/171 does not include the 20m or so of ancillary player spending, meaning the realistic payroll cap/floor they proposed is $225m/$150m. 

Once you make that adjustment and realize the difference between hard and soft caps you realize how far apart they two camps are. 

The $300/$150 also needs to subtract the same $20M which makes it $280/$130

[Pat]

While all the comments on the beneficial aspects of the  cap/floor are insightful, one has to keep in mind that a cap is designed to make the owners even more wealthy than they already are.  

[SteveLV]

I also truly question the assertion the players don't care about competitiveness.  I think they do.

Everyone likes to play on a winning team.  No one wants to play on a basement team.  

If the players think a Minnesota or a Colorado have a legit chance to compete under a new CBA, they will no longer have to pay a "premium" to potential FA's. 

Parity is good for the teams, the players and, most importantly, the fans.

[NYCTK]

22 minutes ago, Pat said:

While all the comments on the beneficial aspects of the  cap/floor are insightful, one has to keep in mind that a cap is designed to make the owners even more wealthy than they already are.  

And it's worth reminding everyone that if you want a cap, you have to be willing to break the players union, meaning we're going a full season without baseball. If you care about a salary cap that much, I question why, but that's the trade off. Are you actually willing to help the billionaires and go a year without baseball just so the Twins can still suck under a salary cap? 

[TheLeviathan]

38 minutes ago, Pat said:

While all the comments on the beneficial aspects of the  cap/floor are insightful, one has to keep in mind that a cap is designed to make the owners even more wealthy than they already are.  

Many things owners do are designed for this purpose.  When they milk us for tax breaks, raise beer prices, gouge us on tickets, etc.  But the notion the cap is designed for this is simply not true.....at least not necessarily.  If that cap is not indexed to revenues...then absolutely it is a cash grab...but it's up to the union to make sure in negotiations that they tether the values of the cap and floor to league revenues.

This article is one I think worth reading.  I'd argue, by staunchly refusing a cap, the MLBPA has largely been doing a disservice to its own members because their percent of the take fluctuates without such an agreement.  And, given your post I'm sure you'd agree with me, I'm sure the owners are leveraging that frequently to their advantage.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Many things owners do are designed for this purpose.  When they milk us for tax breaks, raise beer prices, gouge us on tickets, etc.  But the notion the cap is designed for this is simply not true.....at least not necessarily.  If that cap is not indexed to revenues...then absolutely it is a cash grab...but it's up to the union to make sure in negotiations that they tether the values of the cap and floor to league revenues.

This article is one I think worth reading.  I'd argue, by staunchly refusing a cap, the MLBPA has largely been doing a disservice to its own members because their percent of the take fluctuates without such an agreement.  And, given your post I'm sure you'd agree with me, I'm sure the owners are leveraging that frequently to their advantage.

That article is the math I've always thought should drive this. Crazy to me that the MLBPA doesn't have the data to look at this kind of stuff. Maybe they do and the numbers in that article are wrong?

To me, if the goal is more money in player pockets, the simple decision is to estimate how much you think the league makes now, figure out how much of that is going to players, and decide if it's more or less than 50ish%. If it's less, then you should be the ones fighting for a cap/floor situation with strict rules on what counts as revenue, what doesn't, and how you get your 50% every year.

It all comes down to what percent you think you're getting now and what percent you want to be getting. Real easy decision if the math says you'd be getting more with a cap/floor.

[NYCTK]

27 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Many things owners do are designed for this purpose.  When they milk us for tax breaks, raise beer prices, gouge us on tickets, etc.  But the notion the cap is designed for this is simply not true.....at least not necessarily.  If that cap is not indexed to revenues...then absolutely it is a cash grab...but it's up to the union to make sure in negotiations that they tether the values of the cap and floor to league revenues.

This article is one I think worth reading.  I'd argue, by staunchly refusing a cap, the MLBPA has largely been doing a disservice to its own members because their percent of the take fluctuates without such an agreement.  And, given your post I'm sure you'd agree with me, I'm sure the owners are leveraging that frequently to their advantage.

Three points: 

1. Owners can become increasingly clever in disguising "baseball" revenue, and therefore stealing wages, which everyone should expect since exploitation is the only way to become a billionaire outside of inheritance or divorce settlement

2. I don't actually think the primary reason for the cap is decreasing salary, but making it more predictable of an expense, pushing up franchise valuations. 

3. If one fan on an internet blog no one reads is coming to a conclusion that flies in the face of what both the MLBPA and Owners believe, it's probably extremely faulty. In fact, I know it's a bad article because he's looking exclusively at payroll salary and not including any other player benefits. I've read analysis pegging current MLB share of revenue at 52%. 

 

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Crazy to me that the MLBPA doesn't have the data to look at this kind of stuff. Maybe they do and the numbers in that article are wrong?

Occam's Razor says this.

[TheLeviathan]

25 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That article is the math I've always thought should drive this. Crazy to me that the MLBPA doesn't have the data to look at this kind of stuff. Maybe they do and the numbers in that article are wrong?

To me, if the goal is more money in player pockets, the simple decision is to estimate how much you think the league makes now, figure out how much of that is going to players, and decide if it's more or less than 50ish%. If it's less, then you should be the ones fighting for a cap/floor situation with strict rules on what counts as revenue, what doesn't, and how you get your 50% every year.

It all comes down to what percent you think you're getting now and what percent you want to be getting. Real easy decision if the math says you'd be getting more with a cap/floor.

It's possible the math is wrong, but that's part of the problem.  The MLBPA, by many estimates, falls short of 50% in some years under the current CBA.  (And exceeds it other years) Part of how that happens is that there is no transparency from owners because the MLBPA refuses to agree to anything that would require it.  As a result, all of us are somewhat in the dark.  Maybe the union isn't, but I've never seen them lay out the details for the math that favors them either.  Occam's Razor would tell us why that is too.

Call me crazy, but I think transparency is a good thing and we won't get that until the PA agrees to something that directly connects team spending to team revenue. This will cut down on exploitation, loopholes, and a lack of transparency.  Every single person should want this - players and fans alike.  It will not happen without a cap.  And...we know this works because the other three major leagues already do this and none of the same question marks exist.

So much of what the MLBPA seems to be arguing is not math but a Helms Deep/Last Stand/Nathan Hale type BS about the principle of a cap.  

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The $300/$150 also needs to subtract the same $20M which makes it $280/$130

No. The players offer was payroll separate from benefits. 

Owners are playing games to win public favor. 

[DJL44]

39 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

No. The players offer was payroll separate from benefits. 

Owners are playing games to win public favor. 

The article I read stated it as CBT threshold, which includes benefits. Maybe the article was wrong.

[NYCTK]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

The article I read stated it as CBT threshold, which includes benefits. Maybe the article was wrong.

I am getting my information from an ex mlb owner who is heavily pro owner. So I trust him in this regard. He'd spin it if he could and was upfront about the owners offers squirrely nature. 

Fair point that unless we read the details we don't know for sure. And even if we do, we stand a decent chance of misunderstanding them. 

[Wedman13]

12 hours ago, FlyingFinn said:

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. 

I thought this was a great and informative article.  This take is what you got from it?  That we need a closer?    Maybe we can ship out Joe and get Nelson Cruz back also since we need a DH.

 

[Major League Ready]

15 hours ago, Pat said:

While all the comments on the beneficial aspects of the  cap/floor are insightful, one has to keep in mind that a cap is designed to make the owners even more wealthy than they already are.  

I wondered how you came to this conclusion.  Did you do the math?   I was about to do the math myself when I realized I could ask AI to do the math for me.  Turns out the payroll neutral cap using a $150M floor is $294M.  Your assumption has no merit.  It would appear the owners offer is to provide a payroll neutral model that would give teams /fans better competitive balance and the players are using this desire to provide competitive balance to get a bigger cut.    

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I wondered how you came to this conclusion.  Did you do the math?   I was about to do the math myself when I realized I could ask AI to do the math for me.  Turns out the payroll neutral cap using a $150M floor is $294M.  Your assumption has no merit.  It would appear the owners offer is to provide a payroll neutral model that would give teams /fans better competitive balance and the players are using this desire to provide competitive balance to get a bigger cut.    

There's no reason to believe them when they say they're proposing it to help competitive balance. That's a sales pitch. The owners care about the long term health of the league but there's no reason to believe a salary cap helps that.

Everyone keeps pointing to the NFL, as if that level of domination is because of competitive balance. I call BS. If that were why, the second most popular sports league wouldn't be COLLEGE football. There's no parity in college football, but America can't get enough. 

There's no reason to believe NBA is popular because of their salary cap. Those rules are convoluted and no one understands them, and even so world series is still a bigger event. 

Ironically, I think the NBA is at it's most popular when they have a super team, just as in any sport, but it's way easier to do in basketball since you really only need 3 players.

And I think that's the truth no one wants to admit. Fans LOVE having a Goliath in their league. I hated the late 90s Yankees, but I watched them every October praying on their downfall. Same with the Dodgers today. You don't think there are 12 year old boys stoked to watch the Dodgers lose, experiencing schadenfreude at Betts steep decline, wanting to see Freeman join him down that hill? While simultaneously in awe at the greatest baseball player of all time? 

Increase revenue sharing amongst teams, but there will not, nor should not, be a hard salary cap. 

[bean5302]

21 hours ago, SteveLV said:

Here is a good way to look at this situation, IMO.

In the NFL, there is NO DISCUSSION about eliminating the hard cap and floor.  ZERO.

Why?  Because it works.  Contracts have evolved, good players are getting a ton more guaranteed money than they did 5 years ago, but all good.  

Same for NHL and NBA.

But MLB?  NO.  Somehow this sport is uniquely unsuited to a fair, hard cap and floor because of what reason?  Is there something about the nature or baseball as a game vs. the other major sports that differentiates its labor situation?  NO!!!!

It is the historical precedent of a very powerful union that has manhandled a weak, fractious, disparate ownership group.  Nothing more, nothing less.

There is plenty of money to go around and compensate the players even better, keep the owners rich, and improve the competitiveness of the game.  It is TIME to step up and make it happen.

But, saying all that, I remain skeptical that anything significant will get done.

It works? MLB has substantially more parity than the NFL, NBA or NHL already. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

It works? MLB has substantially more parity than the NFL, NBA or NHL already. 

This has already been proven fallacious.  Repeating it doesn't change that.

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, NYCTK said:

There's no reason to believe them when they say they're proposing it to help competitive balance. That's a sales pitch. The owners care about the long term health of the league but there's no reason to believe a salary cap helps that.

Everyone keeps pointing to the NFL, as if that level of domination is because of competitive balance. I call BS. If that were why, the second most popular sports league wouldn't be COLLEGE football. There's no parity in college football, but America can't get enough. 

There's no reason to believe NBA is popular because of their salary cap. Those rules are convoluted and no one understands them, and even so world series is still a bigger event. 

Ironically, I think the NBA is at it's most popular when they have a super team, just as in any sport, but it's way easier to do in basketball since you really only need 3 players.

And I think that's the truth no one wants to admit. Fans LOVE having a Goliath in their league. I hated the late 90s Yankees, but I watched them every October praying on their downfall. Same with the Dodgers today. You don't think there are 12 year old boys stoked to watch the Dodgers lose, experiencing schadenfreude at Betts steep decline, wanting to see Freeman join him down that hill? While simultaneously in awe at the greatest baseball player of all time? 

Increase revenue sharing amongst teams, but there will not, nor should not, be a hard salary cap. 

OK.  So, why are they proposing it?  It's salary neutral so any argument that it's about profitability is not supported by the impact on aggregate payroll of the league.

I don't really understand where you are coming from with the statement that competitive balance won't help the league.  If you are suggesting it won't grow revenue, I find it hard to believe that strengthening the weak markets won't bring out more people.  However, let's say that's true.  I don't care about profitability.  Reducing the large gap in revenue / salary helps my team.  It would give my team a shot a holding onto players and my team a little better odds of fielding a contender.  

[tony&rodney]

On 5/29/2026 at 10:03 AM, saviking said:

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

The NFL and NBA are extremely well marketed and find ways to bring in audiences. I don't follow either league but more people tune in to those sports than to baseball. I don't see how a salary cap has anything to do with either being a better product.

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It's salary neutral so any argument that it's about profitability is not supported by the impact on aggregate payroll of the league.

I don't know that this is a good assumption. I've tried to do my own research and found player compensation including benefits and bonuses, closer to 52%. If that were true that's a loss of $240 million by the players. 

But let's just assume good faith and say it is — either my estimate is wrong or the owners are willing to bump up the share. It's close enough I'm willing to grant that. 

The reduced risk of their largest expense is hugely beneficial. Which would then also have savings in financing costs, all resulting in increased franchise values. The billionaires care about growing their investment. They don't care about competitive balance outside of what it means for their bottom line. They're happy to see the Dodgers win every year if it means more money for them. 

There's nothing to suggest the salary cap is responsible for growth in interest in the other leagues. It's theorized but for the NFL especially, it's just completely undone by the fact the second most popular league is college football. 

NBA. Is it popular because of the salary cap? The most popular teams the last decades were ones in which the stars took less money to help build super teams. And fewer people watch the Finals than the World Series. (although the Knicks in it this year will hugely increase viewership)

So, the players themselves, like Jalen Brunson deprive themselves of a market deal in order to win where they want, skirting the very intentions of the salary cap to allow Competitive Balance. 

 

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Reducing the large gap in revenue / salary helps my team.  It would give my team a shot a holding onto players and my team a little better odds of fielding a contender.  

I'm not swayed by someone making what I believe to be a bad decision for purely selfish reasons. 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

The NFL and NBA are extremely well marketed and find ways to bring in audiences. I don't follow either league but more people tune in to those sports than to baseball. I don't see how a salary cap has anything to do with either being a better product.

There's no reason to believe the NBA or NFL popularity are helped by a salary cap. It's just pointed to because they exist successfully. 

 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I don't know that this is a good assumption. I've tried to do my own research and found player compensation including benefits and bonuses, closer to 52%. If that were true that's a loss of $240 million by the players. 

But let's just assume good faith and say it is — either my estimate is wrong or the owners are willing to bump up the share. It's close enough I'm willing to grant that. 

The reduced risk of their largest expense is hugely beneficial. Which would then also have savings in financing costs, all resulting in increased franchise values. The billionaires care about growing their investment. They don't care about competitive balance outside of what it means for their bottom line. They're happy to see the Dodgers win every year if it means more money for them. 

There's nothing to suggest the salary cap is responsible for growth in interest in the other leagues. It's theorized but for the NFL especially, it's just completely undone by the fact the second most popular league is college football. 

NBA. Is it popular because of the salary cap? The most popular teams the last decades were ones in which the stars took less money to help build super teams. And fewer people watch the Finals than the World Series. (although the Knicks in it this year will hugely increase viewership)

So, the players themselves, like Jalen Brunson deprive themselves of a market deal in order to win where they want, skirting the very intentions of the salary cap to allow Competitive Balance. 

 

I'm not swayed by someone making what I believe to be a bad decision for purely selfish reasons. 

I am not sure where the difference lies.  I asked AI  ... What was the total spend on payroll with benefits in 2026 and what would it have been under the proposed payroll by the owners which was a floor of $150M and a ceiling of $300M

Using the 2026 Opening Day payroll figures, total MLB payroll was approximately $5.81 billion.

If you apply a hypothetical system with:

• Payroll floor: $150 million
• Payroll ceiling: $300 million

and simply move every club below $150M up to $150M and every club above $300M down to $300M, the result would be:

Actual 2026 payroll         $5.810 billion  

Calculated with a $150M floor / $300M cap, Payroll would have been $6.071 billion.   This is a net increase of $262M.   The players proposal is actually very close in terms of the net number.  The difference in the proposals would be a massive impact on the valuation of teams.   A super majority of owners would be required to pass.  This is highly unlikely.  AI will give you a breakdown if you ask it if this proposal would be likely to pass.  Here is the bottom line from AI.   

MLB bylaws require 23 of 30 clubs (75%) for a major structural change.  

A rough estimate:

Group    Clubs    Likely Vote
Small-market beneficiaries    8-10    Yes
Large-market contributors    8-9    No
Middle-market clubs    11-13    Split

Suppose:

9 beneficiaries vote yes.
8 large-market clubs vote no.

You would then need 14 of the remaining 13 clubs, which is impossible.

Even if a couple of large-market clubs surprisingly supported the proposal, you'd still need almost every middle-market owner on board.   

 

[Original_JB]

"I don't see how a salary cap has anything to do with either being a better product."   

I think on some level it is just perception, in the sense that, at the base level, everyone is working with the same 'budget', which people will perceive as competitive "fairness".  And it is not the same, but for the casual or semi-casual fans, there's a certain amount of "how many times do I need to go see the Harlem Globetrotters (or if you're on the bottom end, the Washington Generals) in a given year?"  Yes, there are people who go purely for the entertainment factor and don't know anything about the game/players and have a good time, but most people want to go and enjoy their team having a 'fair' shot at winning (and not that they don't, but the perception....)

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, Original_JB said:

"I don't see how a salary cap has anything to do with either being a better product."   

I think on some level it is just perception, 

I think that's very true.  Fans deserve to believe that the competition they watch on the field is legitimate.  They do not want to be told, 1) "gamblers got their hooks into the players," 2) "some of the players were on performance enhancing drugs."  If the casual fan goes to the game without prior knowledge, and then finds out that the team that won 15-4 was actually paid 5x more, it's a bummer.

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

I think that's very true.  Fans deserve to believe that the competition they watch on the field is legitimate.  They do not want to be told, 1) "gamblers got their hooks into the players," 2) "some of the players were on performance enhancing drugs."  If the casual fan goes to the game without prior knowledge, and then finds out that the team that won 15-4 was actually paid 5x more, it's a bummer.

Right.  Imagine you get tickets to a high school football game, you know nothing about the league at first so you ask someone to describe the nature of the two teams.....

If the person you ask this question to responds with "Well one of them is from the richest suburb of the Cities, they have every advantage known to man, and a roster that's about 80 players deep with several future D1 players.  Their opponent is a 14 man team who plays both sides of the ball, who just got out of the cornfields, and have zero chance of playing another snap in their life after high school"

Your optimism for that game would plummet.  You'd ask yourself how on earth that matchup was made given the completely different dynamics at play.  You'd question the basic competitive nature of the game itself for even allowing that matchup to exist!

The NFL, NBA, and NHL don't have that.  When you sit down to consider those sports the winners and losers are decided by competency in management, coaching, player acquisition, etc.  These are things completely independent of market size, TV deals, fanbase sentiments, etc.  In other words - things your organization has control over versus those they don't.

When a league sets up their competitive dynamic they shouldn't be purposely creating matchups like cornfields vs. the elites.  (And they don't.  Please see EVERY ammy/high school format known to man for teams)  The CBAs that professionals play under are the framework for that dynamic.  It should reflect a real competitive spirit instead of the one we know today.  A couple week small sample in October shouldn't be confusing anyone about the flaws in the previously described matchup or the longterm impact it can have on fans to build a league around such lopsided competitions.