Salary cap ceiling and floor will benefit the Twins.

[darin617]

With the potential lockout this winter it could actually be a benefit for the Twins and their fans with a salary cap floor and ceiling.

The first benefit for the fans would be the Twins would have to increase payroll significantly to reach the floor. That's just going off the proposed 245m ceiling and 170m floor. 

It would also speed up a potential sale since the Pohlad family may not want to keep it with the increased payroll.

For the Twins the only player's that may be hurt by the cap are the prospects since the Twins will be forced to increase the payroll by nearly 50m. So it might hurt them from being promoted.

I would not mind trading some young players or prospects for a big contract to help get a large market team under the ceiling of the cap. As long as it's not an overpriced contract.

 

[DJL44]

I doubt having more complicated transaction rules will help this front office figure out how to put a winning team on the field.

[Irishman]

I think this salary cap isn’t going to happen.  Most players and their agents wouldn’t want any kind of salary cap.   
 

Do I want MLB to implement the salary cap?   I would say yes.  

Players’ salaries are skyrocketing like crazy.    Players and their agents are greedy.   So these owners are greedy, too.   Parking fees, foods and merchandise are expensive.  
 

About 10 years ago at Twins game I bought a cheeseburger, soda and a bag of peanuts for $28.  That was rip-off!   I haven’t been to Target field since.  

[HarmonK03]

5 hours ago, darin617 said:

The first benefit for the fans would be the Twins would have to increase payroll significantly to reach the floor. That's just going off the proposed 245m ceiling and 170m floor. 

It would also speed up a potential sale since the Pohlad family may not want to keep it with the increased payroll.

There would probably be a period to get to those numbers if it goes through, which I don't think those numbers will be the final if any.

There would also be an increase of revenue sharing to help offset the increased payroll costs, in theory it would be a sum zero game, but who knows how much of an impact in reality no one knows.  But this is also why the owners are going to be divided, the big markets aren't going to want to give up their local tv revenue.

It is a long way to go and a lot of negotiating will occur so who knows what the final result will be.

[jaimedude]

First thing they need to do is get rid of Dodgers sweetheart local media rights exemptions where they get billions in revenue and do not share. Need National media rights deals that is distributed and shared by all the franchises. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

The salary cap and floor will increase pay to players significantly.   Now the players will be more spread out,  the you won't have paid for super teams like the Dodgers.   But this will take a couple years with players contracts ect to implement.   The math when explained to the majority of players should make sense.   Plus it will allow those players to stay on their original teams for their careers more likely if they wish.  Currently if you are in a smaller market they are forced to trade you.  Just look at Milwaukee or Tampa Bay or even what the Twins experienced last year.  

[FlyingFinn]

The floor only helps the Twins if the FO spends it appropriately. If they just spend it on anyone to reach the floor, it's simply a waste of money.

[Vanimal46]

We will have all the time in the world to discuss this in more detail... A cap and floor needs to happen. Equal revenue sharing throughout the league, deferrals in contracts eliminated. The players in return get a reduction from 6 years of control to 4 so they can reach FA or get their 2nd contract earlier in their career. 

[The Great Hambino]

A floor doesn't do anything for the Twins if they just spend to the floor.  That would still put them at the bottom of league payrolls.  In fact, they'd actually rank lower than they do now since there are still teams like the Marlins out there carrying obscenely low payrolls.

In other words, if they want to get credit for increasing spending, they only get credit for spending above any floor.

I imagine they and several other teams will spend at or near whatever floor is put in place.  Keep this in mind when MLB tries to sell their plan as sharing 50% of revenues with players

[bean5302]

18 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I doubt having more complicated transaction rules will help this front office figure out how to put a winning team on the field.

 

51 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

A floor doesn't do anything for the Twins if they just spend to the floor.  That would still put them at the bottom of league payrolls.  In fact, they'd actually rank lower than they do now since there are still teams like the Marlins out there carrying obscenely low payrolls.

In other words, if they want to get credit for increasing spending, they only get credit for spending above any floor.

I imagine they and several other teams will spend at or near whatever floor is put in place.  Keep this in mind when MLB tries to sell their plan as sharing 50% of revenues with players

I can only imagine Zoll's roster decisions LOL.

Larnach back.
Bell option exercised.
At least 10 $5-10MM free agents.
Culpepper, Jenkins, Lewis, Lee all to AAA to make room for the dumpster dive free agents.
Basically, any player with an option goes to AAA

[darin617]

14 hours ago, HarmonK03 said:

There would probably be a period to get to those numbers if it goes through, which I don't think those numbers will be the final if any.

There would also be an increase of revenue sharing to help offset the increased payroll costs, in theory it would be a sum zero game, but who knows how much of an impact in reality no one knows.  But this is also why the owners are going to be divided, the big markets aren't going to want to give up their local tv revenue.

It is a long way to go and a lot of negotiating will occur so who knows what the final result will be.

That wouldn't be how it would go. Teams would have to spend the money to reach the floor. Sadly, in the first year at least there will be some very ugly deals just so a team can meet the floor.

[HarmonK03]

12 minutes ago, darin617 said:

That wouldn't be how it would go. Teams would have to spend the money to reach the floor. Sadly, in the first year at least there will be some very ugly deals just so a team can meet the floor.

You don't know how it would go anymore than me.  But when you have teams almost $100m below the initial proposed floor, reality says it is not going to be that easy to just get up to it.  So either they do a step process of a lower floor level with automatic increases each year until they get to the agreed starting point or they give teams a period of time to reach it.  It is all negotiations and we have no idea how it will end up.

[bean5302]

The mean average competitive balance payroll for MLB this year was $190MM. Getting to a $170MM floor would not be that hard. There would be some forced trades from the top teams, and you'd see some bad contracts get eaten by the lowest payroll teams.

The Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Blue Jays and potentially the Red Sox/Padres might have to work to clear a player or players, but that's the intended outcome of the hard cap. I wonder how that would work from a NTC standpoint? 

The Dodgers would be catastrophically impacted. Their "dream team" would be immediately disbanded.

 

[darin617]

2 hours ago, HarmonK03 said:

You don't know how it would go anymore than me.  But when you have teams almost $100m below the initial proposed floor, reality says it is not going to be that easy to just get up to it.  So either they do a step process of a lower floor level with automatic increases each year until they get to the agreed starting point or they give teams a period of time to reach it.  It is all negotiations and we have no idea how it will end up.

It would be just like passing a law, it would go into effect immediately.  Teams would have to cut payroll to get under the ceiling and teams under would have to add.

Yes, NFL teams had to meet the Salary cap limits immediately when the system went into effect for the 1994 NFL season. [1, 2]

 

Compliance and Rules

• Immediate Enforcement: When the first league year under the cap started in March 1994, every franchise had to trim their payrolls to get under the hard spending limit (initially set around $34.6 million). [1, 2]

• Roster Adjustments: Teams immediately had to restructure veteran contracts, trade high-priced players, or outright release star players to comply with the new ceiling before the deadline. [1, 2]

• The Consequences: There was no multi-year grace period or phase-in allowance; failing to meet the cap limit right away resulted in severe league fines and penalties. [1]
• Yes, NHL teams had to meet the NHL salary cap immediately when it was introduced for the 2005–06 season. [1, 2]
  How It Worked Right Away
  • Hard Cap and Floor: The system was a hard ceiling ($39 million) and a lower floor ($21.5 million) from day one. [1, 2]
  • Immediate Compliance: Teams over the limit could not phase in compliance over multiple years. High-spending teams like the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings, and Philadelphia Flyers had to slash payrolls immediately before the season began. [1]
  • Rollbacks: The new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included a mandatory 24% league-wide salary rollback on existing player contracts to help teams get under the newly established cap limit. [1, 2]

[NYCTK]

15 hours ago, jaimedude said:

First thing they need to do is get rid of Dodgers sweetheart local media rights exemptions where they get billions in revenue and do not share. Need National media rights deals that is distributed and shared by all the franchises. 

I'm curious if MLB/Charter couldn't use this newest Dodgers financing scandal as a way to nullify that bogus agreement. But regardless, you're right. 

Ultimately, I think we end up with MLB teams sharing more, if not close to 100%, of TV revenue, which would obviously be a big increase from the Dodger's sweetheart ~25% or whatever it is, lower than the 48% it should be. 

6 hours ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

The salary cap and floor will increase pay to players significantly. 

Citation needed. 

This doesn't follow, at all. The owners wouldn't be asking for a salary cap if this were the case. I think, initially, it would be pretty even in the aggregate. But with the owner's hope of chipping away at that percentage in future negotiations. 

 

5 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

deferrals in contracts eliminated. The players in return get a reduction from 6 years of control to 4 so they can reach FA

Deferrals are quite overblown by the fans. However, I'd be happy to do away with them, but because it's a way to shield player salaries from municipal and state taxes, not because it helps the MLB teams handing them out, because it only does due to the increased value of that tax benefit to the player. Which, I guess, isn't insignificant. 

But, as for the reduction in team control, that is the biggest thing the owners could offer that might possibly make the player sway in their steadfast opposition to the salary cap. I still don't think that will happen, but it's a decent proposal. Without that reduction though, the players won't (and shouldn't) even both listening. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

I'm curious if MLB/Charter couldn't use this newest Dodgers financing scandal as a way to nullify that bogus agreement. But regardless, you're right. 

Ultimately, I think we end up with MLB teams sharing more, if not close to 100%, of TV revenue, which would obviously be a big increase from the Dodger's sweetheart ~25% or whatever it is, lower than the 48% it should be. 

Citation needed. 

This doesn't follow, at all. The owners wouldn't be asking for a salary cap if this were the case. I think, initially, it would be pretty even in the aggregate. But with the owner's hope of chipping away at that percentage in future negotiations. 

 

Deferrals are quite overblown by the fans. However, I'd be happy to do away with them, but because it's a way to shield player salaries from municipal and state taxes, not because it helps the MLB teams handing them out, because it only does due to the increased value of that tax benefit to the player. Which, I guess, isn't insignificant. 

But, as for the reduction in team control, that is the biggest thing the owners could offer that might possibly make the player sway in their steadfast opposition to the salary cap. I still don't think that will happen, but it's a decent proposal. Without that reduction though, the players won't (and shouldn't) even both listening. 

The owners want a fair playing field.  By all accounts the overall salaries with increase by 40% by what I have seen.  The math was done by just lowering the teams over the cap,  and increasing all the other teams below the floor.   Where the revenue comes from to do that,  possibly reclaiming the tv revenues from the dodgers,  but that is what is being proposed.  If I am an agent or a player and they can merely say there will be a bigger pie, I don't understand what the massive fight is over.   

[Vanimal46]

10 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I'm curious if MLB/Charter couldn't use this newest Dodgers financing scandal as a way to nullify that bogus agreement. But regardless, you're right. 

Ultimately, I think we end up with MLB teams sharing more, if not close to 100%, of TV revenue, which would obviously be a big increase from the Dodger's sweetheart ~25% or whatever it is, lower than the 48% it should be. 

Citation needed. 

This doesn't follow, at all. The owners wouldn't be asking for a salary cap if this were the case. I think, initially, it would be pretty even in the aggregate. But with the owner's hope of chipping away at that percentage in future negotiations. 

 

Deferrals are quite overblown by the fans. However, I'd be happy to do away with them, but because it's a way to shield player salaries from municipal and state taxes, not because it helps the MLB teams handing them out, because it only does due to the increased value of that tax benefit to the player. Which, I guess, isn't insignificant. 

But, as for the reduction in team control, that is the biggest thing the owners could offer that might possibly make the player sway in their steadfast opposition to the salary cap. I still don't think that will happen, but it's a decent proposal. Without that reduction though, the players won't (and shouldn't) even both listening. 

It’s mostly about the Ohtani contract and the Dodgers taking that loophole to the extreme. Over $1 billion in deferred salary is ridiculous…

The players will need to receive something in return for a cap, and I think the best way to get players money earlier in their career. Spit balling here, but they could revamp the initial control years to 2 minimum contract years then 2 arbitration/restricted FA years. MLB gets a younger FA pool which increases fan interest. 

[NYCTK]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

The owners want a fair playing field.

No. The owners want to increase the value of their asset.

They SAY they want a fair playing field as part of their PR campaign in order to build fan support behind their proposal. 

I supposed there are probably a few owners that increased competitive balance is their A or B goal, but as a collective, it simply isn't the case. 

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

By all accounts the overall salaries with increase by 40% by what I have seen. 

Ask yourself if that sounds accurate, and if you think it could be accurate, why would the owners do that? (It isn't accurate) 

 

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

The math was done by just lowering the teams over the cap,  and increasing all the other teams below the floor.   

I will grant that this was done by someone in good faith, but poor understanding. The "salary" cap and floor the owners proposed weren't actually for salaries, but salaries AND additional benefits (which are something like an additional $600-$750 Million on top of payroll).

So I'm guessing that analysis missed this nuance, which was intentionally misleading PR from the owners, so they're forgiven! 

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

If I am an agent or a player and they can merely say there will be a bigger pie, I don't understand what the massive fight is over.   

The players union will not, and should not, agree to a salary cap on an unknowable promise that it would result in greater revenue. That would be a massive blunder on their part. 

 

3 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Over $1 billion in deferred salary is ridiculous…

It is, but even so, the Dodgers are paying Luxury Tax on that deferred money in 2026. It isn't just ignored. It's already accounted for. 

Ignoring the ethical nature of the tax evasion scheme, it's actually a really creative way for a high tax state like California to sort of negate that and get on balance with the states like Texas or Florida. This is if I'm even understanding the tax liability for deferred salary accurately. Maybe California already has a button for that sort of scheme I'm unfamiliar with. 

6 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Spit balling here, but they could revamp the initial control years to 2 minimum contract years then 2 arbitration/restricted FA years. MLB gets a younger FA pool which increases fan interest. 

Agreed, that'd be the minimum requirement to get the players to the table to discuss a salary cap IMO. At that point, I'd have the faith in the players to negotiate the specifics and think they'd probably be 50/50 on backing off their refusal to accept a cap. But, we've not seen the owners offer anything near that value, but we're still in the first round so we will see. 

[HarmonK03]

53 minutes ago, darin617 said:

It would be just like passing a law, it would go into effect immediately.  Teams would have to cut payroll to get under the ceiling and teams under would have to add.

Yes, NFL teams had to meet the Salary cap limits immediately when the system went into effect for the 1994 NFL season. [1, 2]

 

Compliance and Rules

• Immediate Enforcement: When the first league year under the cap started in March 1994, every franchise had to trim their payrolls to get under the hard spending limit (initially set around $34.6 million). [1, 2]

• Roster Adjustments: Teams immediately had to restructure veteran contracts, trade high-priced players, or outright release star players to comply with the new ceiling before the deadline. [1, 2]

• The Consequences: There was no multi-year grace period or phase-in allowance; failing to meet the cap limit right away resulted in severe league fines and penalties. [1]
• Yes, NHL teams had to meet the NHL salary cap immediately when it was introduced for the 2005–06 season. [1, 2]
   
  How It Worked Right Away
  • Hard Cap and Floor: The system was a hard ceiling ($39 million) and a lower floor ($21.5 million) from day one. [1, 2]
  • Immediate Compliance: Teams over the limit could not phase in compliance over multiple years. High-spending teams like the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings, and Philadelphia Flyers had to slash payrolls immediately before the season began. [1]
  • Rollbacks: The new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included a mandatory 24% league-wide salary rollback on existing player contracts to help teams get under the newly established cap limit. [1, 2]

I am guessing you must be an attorney since you seem so certain how it works.  The timeline would be negotiated, it could be immediate or it could be phased, we don't know, unless you are sitting in on the talks.  Football and baseball are two different sports, each sport will do what is best for itself. 

The owners will have to negotiate with themselves as well because the big market teams are not just going to fold and say we will trade three of our top players or whatever the number is and give up revenue too.  Cleveland would have to raise their payroll by $100m if these numbers hold, I find it hard to believe it will happen overnight, but I don't know.

But the real negotiating is not going to happen until December 2nd when the lockout begins and they will start getting serious when spring training is supposed to start.  We still don't even know if the cap will get implemented.  They can say all the right things now but when checks start getting missed and payments to the owners from the tv contracts, we will see how firm they are.

[The Great Hambino]

1 minute ago, HarmonK03 said:

I am guessing you must be an attorney since you seem so certain how it works.  The timeline would be negotiated, it could be immediate or it could be phased, we don't know, unless you are sitting in on the talks.  Football and baseball are two different sports, each sport will do what is best for itself. 

 

Not to mention laws are passed with a future effective date all the time, especially when dealing with finances

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

 

According to this chart (shout out to @bean5302 for using the same competitive balance payroll figures that MLB is using to set their cap/floor proposals), if every team above the cap spent to the cap of $245.3MM and every team below the floor spent to the floor of $171.2MM, overall salaries would increase by 1%

For reference, salaries have been growing by an annual average of 6.4% since 2022 (chosen to eliminate COVID-related statistical noise) according to figures here and here

It's debatable what sort of indirect effects on market behavior would occur in that sort of floor/cap system, but the idea that salaries would increase by anything in the neighborhood of 40% is utterly absurd

[Craig Arko]

1 hour ago, darin617 said:

It would be just like passing a law, it would go into effect immediately.  Teams would have to cut payroll to get under the ceiling and teams under would have to add.

Yes, NFL teams had to meet the Salary cap limits immediately when the system went into effect for the 1994 NFL season. [1, 2]

 

Compliance and Rules

• Immediate Enforcement: When the first league year under the cap started in March 1994, every franchise had to trim their payrolls to get under the hard spending limit (initially set around $34.6 million). [1, 2]

• Roster Adjustments: Teams immediately had to restructure veteran contracts, trade high-priced players, or outright release star players to comply with the new ceiling before the deadline. [1, 2]

• The Consequences: There was no multi-year grace period or phase-in allowance; failing to meet the cap limit right away resulted in severe league fines and penalties. [1]
• Yes, NHL teams had to meet the NHL salary cap immediately when it was introduced for the 2005–06 season. [1, 2]
   
  How It Worked Right Away
  • Hard Cap and Floor: The system was a hard ceiling ($39 million) and a lower floor ($21.5 million) from day one. [1, 2]
  • Immediate Compliance: Teams over the limit could not phase in compliance over multiple years. High-spending teams like the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings, and Philadelphia Flyers had to slash payrolls immediately before the season began. [1]
  • Rollbacks: The new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included a mandatory 24% league-wide salary rollback on existing player contracts to help teams get under the newly established cap limit. [1, 2]

I would think it will be whatever is agreed to by MLB and the Players Association. They’re neither the NFL nor the NHL, so I wouldn’t get too antsy about applying those cases to this one.

By the way, if there is a floor in the agreement some teams (including, perhaps, the Twins) may try to meet it by signing current players to extensions, wouldn’t they?

[tony&rodney]

Understood that most people are NFL, NBA, or NHL fans and also follow MLB, but the comparisons don't work at all in my humble opinion. The idea of those cap and floor numbers working for a league that has mostly chaos across its media contracts seems absurd to me. I totally accept that many people believe in the concept and also want it. 

The owners created this baby and they can work with the MLBPA to solve how they want to proceed going forward. MLB might face a tough challenge getting the Dodgers to drop roughly $160 million from their payroll when their contracts (player and media) are all signed and guaranteed.

I expect some modifications of the current arrangements, mostly because the owners are not too interested in making all of their books public.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

It’s mostly about the Ohtani contract and the Dodgers taking that loophole to the extreme. Over $1 billion in deferred salary is ridiculous…

The players will need to receive something in return for a cap, and I think the best way to get players money earlier in their career. Spit balling here, but they could revamp the initial control years to 2 minimum contract years then 2 arbitration/restricted FA years. MLB gets a younger FA pool which increases fan interest. 

I think structuring it like the NHL makes a lot of sense.  They structure based on age where the youngest players have the longest control and there is a sliding scale as the player ages.  It doesn't make sense for a 4 year college player and a high schooler to have the same level of team control IMO.

Something like 5 years for anyone 19 or younger on draft day, 3 years for anyone older would work well.  That would guarantee that any player would be able to hit free agency by the age of 25.  A massive increase in their ability to market themselves and make money.  

[Linus]

I’m not worried about it. The MLBPA has staked their existence on fighting any kind of a salary cap. No cap, no floor. There will be tweaks but that’s about it 

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I think structuring it like the NHL makes a lot of sense.  They structure based on age where the youngest players have the longest control and there is a sliding scale as the player ages.  It doesn't make sense for a 4 year college player and a high schooler to have the same level of team control IMO.

Something like 5 years for anyone 19 or younger on draft day, 3 years for anyone older would work well.  That would guarantee that any player would be able to hit free agency by the age of 25.  A massive increase in their ability to market themselves and make money.  

Anyone over 26 without a major league deal is a free agent. Easy.