Ryan Jeffers 3 years 45-48m?

[Sampson5]

No chance twins pay jeffers 15+ million a year tbh . If they extend him he'd have to take a discount overwise feels like twins are happy losing him and taking the draft pick . 

[chpettit19]

21 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

After the elite pitchers, the free agent market looks absolutely dreadful next year. I typically wouldn't want to pay Jeffers OR Ryan beyond their likely productive years or for more than they'd get on the market, but if the Twins are forced to raise payroll, I'd rather have both players on ugly contracts, than a half dozen ugly players on team friendly contracts clogging up the roster.

If the Twins are forced to spend more there will be teams forced to cut and the free agent and trade markets won't look anything like they do right now. There's no world in which the owners accept a floor without a cap. Using the current free agent market in relation to the Twins being forced to spend more isn't a great exercise.

The chaos enjoying side of my brain is actually rather intrigued by the idea of a floor and cap being implemented and there being a whirlwind of moves as teams have a shortened period of time before the season starts to get compliant 1 way or the other. Would be fantastic entertainment.

[amjgt]

25 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If the Twins are forced to spend more there will be teams forced to cut and the free agent and trade markets won't look anything like they do right now. There's no world in which the owners accept a floor without a cap. Using the current free agent market in relation to the Twins being forced to spend more isn't a great exercise.

The chaos enjoying side of my brain is actually rather intrigued by the idea of a floor and cap being implemented and there being a whirlwind of moves as teams have a shortened period of time before the season starts to get compliant 1 way or the other. Would be fantastic entertainment.

I just don't believe that no matter what salary cap/floor changes are put in place with a new CBA that the compliance deadline will be short enough to trigger this whirlwind you describe

I could see the cap having a 5 year phase in to compliance and the floor having something shorter like a 2 year phase in. That's just one of the major changes being talked about that will need some sort of phasing in or grandfathering in (arbitration length and existing contracts being the most prominent)

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 7/14/2026 at 6:26 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I don't sign a catcher to that age. But I understand not everyone agrees. 

The only way you sign a catcher to that deal is if you're confident the bat will carry, which I am not about Jeffers.

[nicksaviking]

35 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If the Twins are forced to spend more there will be teams forced to cut and the free agent and trade markets won't look anything like they do right now. There's no world in which the owners accept a floor without a cap. Using the current free agent market in relation to the Twins being forced to spend more isn't a great exercise.

The chaos enjoying side of my brain is actually rather intrigued by the idea of a floor and cap being implemented and there being a whirlwind of moves as teams have a shortened period of time before the season starts to get compliant 1 way or the other. Would be fantastic entertainment.

But are the players the Dodgers want to cut, the guys we actually want? 

Maybe they're be someone but generally I'd think then the Twins are spending money to keep up with the big clubs, but doing it on the players the big clubs were willing to give up on.

[chpettit19]

Just now, amjgt said:

I just don't believe that no matter what salary cap/floor changes are put in place with a new CBA that the compliance deadline will be short enough to trigger this whirlwind you describe

I could see the cap having a 5 year phase in to compliance and the floor having something shorter like a 2 year phase in. That's just one of the major changes being talked about that will need some sort of phasing in or grandfathering in (arbitration length and existing contracts being the most prominent)

5 years?! That'd be unprecedented. NFL teams had to cut players (whirlwind). NHL teams had to cut players (whirlwind). The NBA did grandfather veteran contracts in, but teams over the cap couldn't sign free agents (not such a whirlwind).

5 years would be the entire length of the new CBA. I think there is a 0% chance of a phase in that lasts the entire length of the CBA and then has to be renegotiated again. There has never been a true "phase in" for any other major American sports league that implemented a cap. And only the NBA grandfathered in any contracts.

[nicksaviking]

In any case, I'm sure drafting Lackey changes the equation for the Twins.

It 100% shouldn't because if any team knows not to count on top draft picks, it's this one. But I'm sure they're already penciling him into the 2028 roster.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

But are the players the Dodgers want to cut, the guys we actually want? 

Maybe they're be someone but generally I'd think then the Twins are spending money to keep up with the big clubs, but doing it on the players the big clubs were willing to give up on.

It depends where the cap is at. There aren't a lot of guys with contracts big enough to make real movement toward the cap for them that aren't pretty big name guys, right? I wouldn't expect Ohtani or Tucker to be dropped, but Freeman and/or Betts? Certainly past their prime guys, but I'd certainly pay Freeman before I overspent on Jeffers. Can they keep their entire Cy Young style rotation together or is Blake Snell and/or Tyler Glasnow hitting the market? They able to afford Edwin Diaz still? Tanner Scott?

The Dodgers would need to drop $75+ mil in payroll to get to a cap at $250 million. You're not getting there by non-tendering Alex Call. Obviously, the Twins aren't the only team that'd have to spend, so it's not like they just get the pick of the lot, but I think you'd see some awfully big names hitting the market.

[amjgt]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

5 years?! That'd be unprecedented. NFL teams had to cut players (whirlwind). NHL teams had to cut players (whirlwind). The NBA did grandfather veteran contracts in, but teams over the cap couldn't sign free agents (not such a whirlwind).

5 years would be the entire length of the new CBA. I think there is a 0% chance of a phase in that lasts the entire length of the CBA and then has to be renegotiated again. There has never been a true "phase in" for any other major American sports league that implemented a cap. And only the NBA grandfathered in any contracts.

I'll admit, I was being a little extreme by throwing out 5 years. but there's never been a situation where teams are potentially this far out of compliance from what the new baseline might be. 

I think there's very little chance there wont be some sort of phase-in. I also think the players will fight as much as possible to prevent a cap and as part of what might be their eventual concession on that item, they will likely negotiate as long of a phase in as possible for the cap and as short of a phase in as possible for a floor. 

[Mike Sixel]

Looked at Tampa and NYY lists, and definitely prefer trading with Tampa for Jeffers, unless Yankees over pay....

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

26 minutes ago, amjgt said:

I'll admit, I was being a little extreme by throwing out 5 years. but there's never been a situation where teams are potentially this far out of compliance from what the new baseline might be. 

I think there's very little chance there wont be some sort of phase-in. I also think the players will fight as much as possible to prevent a cap and as part of what might be their eventual concession on that item, they will likely negotiate as long of a phase in as possible for the cap and as short of a phase in as possible for a floor. 

I completely think there will be a phase in.  But I don't think anyone would be surprised that the Twins would need to spend $100 million for 2027- $125 million in 28 and $150 million by 29,   The phase out for the overspenders would be in 25-20 million increments as well.   .   Thats the game changer.   The league will state there will be more money going to players if they raise the floor and they will allow a nominal increase amount based off every year.  If the math equates to an extra 400 million,  the players have to say yes.   

Actual proposal -  Hard Cap $245 million      Payroll Floor $171 million 

Total change             - $246 million                    +$840 million         Net +600 million    

 

This has to be phased in otherwise it will be cash grab and massive amounts of extensions.   But this appears to be a boon for the players and teams can state the money is actually going to pay the players rather than pay salary tax.     

                   

[Patzky]

17 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

How many game season for a champion to be considered unworthy?

The cardboard fans would like to weigh in.

[Eris]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

This has to be phased in otherwise it will be cash grab and massive amounts of extensions. 

I understand your point, however the players voting for the agreement are the same ones who will benefit the most from an immediate increase in salary floor. 

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Patzky said:

The cardboard fans would like to weigh in.

Even the cardboard dogs?

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, amjgt said:

I'll admit, I was being a little extreme by throwing out 5 years. but there's never been a situation where teams are potentially this far out of compliance from what the new baseline might be. 

I think there's very little chance there wont be some sort of phase-in. I also think the players will fight as much as possible to prevent a cap and as part of what might be their eventual concession on that item, they will likely negotiate as long of a phase in as possible for the cap and as short of a phase in as possible for a floor. 

That's certainly possible, but I think unlikely. If the players are looking to maximize the dollars coming their way in a floor/cap situation, they want buyouts of every deal where they still get their money, but the team has to drop them so they can sign somewhere else. Double dip. Edwin Diaz wants his 52+ million left on his deal from the Dodgers while also signing a 3 year, $33 million deal with the Twins.

This is their chance to take a massive chunk of cash. The owners agree to it as a 1-time payment in return for getting cost control for their franchises. The players maximize their money by forcing teams to pay players twice instead of slowly adjusting in.

But there's so many different rules that will have to be ironed out on how the cap and contracts work that it's really hard to say. I'd put my money on an immediate payroll requirement, though. Players want to get their money coming and going.

[Major League Ready]

On 7/14/2026 at 6:18 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I think he gets five. 

Even if he could get 4, there is no way the twins are going there after drafting Lackey.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Major League Ready said:

Even if he could get 4, there is no way the twins are going there after drafting Lackey.  Wouldn't you agree?

I just think signing a catcher to that age is a bad idea, unless he's HOF material. I do think Lackey being in Minnesota plays a part in being comfortable with that for them. 

[Major League Ready]

34 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That's certainly possible, but I think unlikely. If the players are looking to maximize the dollars coming their way in a floor/cap situation, they want buyouts of every deal where they still get their money, but the team has to drop them so they can sign somewhere else. Double dip. Edwin Diaz wants his 52+ million left on his deal from the Dodgers while also signing a 3 year, $33 million deal with the Twins.

This is their chance to take a massive chunk of cash. The owners agree to it as a 1-time payment in return for getting cost control for their franchises. The players maximize their money by forcing teams to pay players twice instead of slowly adjusting in.

But there's so many different rules that will have to be ironed out on how the cap and contracts work that it's really hard to say. I'd put my money on an immediate payroll requirement, though. Players want to get their money coming and going.

I think they end up with a 3-4 year transition.  It would be an absolute mess to do it in a season or two.  It's going to be interesting.  If they forced it, that would require a redistribution of expensive talent.

[chpettit19]

40 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I think they end up with a 3-4 year transition.  It would be an absolute mess to do it in a season or two.  It's going to be interesting.  If they forced it, that would require a redistribution of expensive talent.

The best thing we have to predict things off is other leagues implementing caps. None of them had a transition period. Closest thing to one was the NBA grandfathering in veteran deals. But teams over the cap from that couldn't sign free agents. 

Obviously every league has its own unique set of circumstances, but no league has phased things in or given a multi-year transition period yet.

None of us have enough info to make all that great of guesses, so I'm going mostly off the precedent from other leagues.