Salary cap ceiling and floor will benefit the Twins.

[Vanimal46]

4 minutes ago, Linus said:

I have no opinion on that. Based on prior negotiations the MLBPA will fight a cap to the bitter end. If by some miracle there is a cap it will mean no baseball in 27. 

If losing baseball in 2027 means a future where the Dodgers can't buy all of the top FAs every year, I will take that trade off. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I honestly don't care about a cap, but I care quite a bit about a floor. If you need one to have the other, so be it.

But what I REALLY care about is revenue sharing. It doesn't need to be NFL-style equitable, but there needs to be a greater balance. And then you need some kind of insurance that crappy owners like Bob Nutting will actually spend that windfall.

I also put revenue sharing at the top of the list for what needs to come out of these negotiations, I just don't see a path forward where you can get all owners and the MLBPA to agree to a structure without all of the following:

1) Nearly perfectly equitable revenue sharing, especially of media rights (if this doesn't happen, none of the rest matters)

2) A cap to insure that the above agreement is honored without shady BS where teams generate revenue that isn't part of the agreement or use their local advantages to find a new way to get ahead of others.

3) A floor to insure that shared revenue is spent

4) Rigorous rules about how the money is spent so that the cap and floor are purely player spending and not other shenanigans

5) Aggressively more player freedom and movement with reduced team control/manipulation tactics.

I think any one of those things not in the picture will cause some faction at the negotiating table to back out or complicate things.  I have low optimism they can all be achieved and agree with @The Great Hambinothat we are likely looking at some monstrosity like the NBA or nothing notable at all and the can gets kicked down the road.

[Brandon]

On 9/9/2026 at 2:29 PM, darin617 said:

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.

 

If there is a floor of 170 million, the revenue sharing will go up to help teams be able to reach that.  That is the point of the floor and ceiling is league parity including spreading the revenue around the league.  The players will want to hit 50-55% of revenue for salaries and that is what they are doing here.  170 million times 32 teams is over 5 billion in payroll minimum in a 10 billion per season revenue.

[darin617]

47 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I also put revenue sharing at the top of the list for what needs to come out of these negotiations, I just don't see a path forward where you can get all owners and the MLBPA to agree to a structure without all of the following:

1) Nearly perfectly equitable revenue sharing, especially of media rights (if this doesn't happen, none of the rest matters)

2) A cap to insure that the above agreement is honored without shady BS where teams generate revenue that isn't part of the agreement or use their local advantages to find a new way to get ahead of others.

3) A floor to insure that shared revenue is spent

4) Rigorous rules about how the money is spent so that the cap and floor are purely player spending and not other shenanigans

5) Aggressively more player freedom and movement with reduced team control/manipulation tactics.

I think any one of those things not in the picture will cause some faction at the negotiating table to back out or complicate things.  I have low optimism they can all be achieved and agree with @The Great Hambinothat we are likely looking at some monstrosity like the NBA or nothing notable at all and the can gets kicked down the road.

They can be met, but that would probably mean they lose a significant portion of the season if not an entire season. It will be hardball for sure to see which side buckles first.

[TheLeviathan]

4 minutes ago, darin617 said:

They can be met, but that would probably mean they lose a significant portion of the season if not an entire season. It will be hardball for sure to see which side buckles first.

I agree, in fact I'd go one step farther - it should be met.  Agreeing to those five things, in the short and the long term, is better for both sides.  I'm not even sure you can quantify the long-term benefit of putting the league's finances and competitive balance on better footing...but it sure seems like the NBA and NFL have thrived since doing so.  

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

If losing baseball in 2027 means a future where the Dodgers can't buy all of the top FAs every year, I will take that trade off. 

This is such a crazy statement to me, that an AL fan would happily go a full 18 months without baseball in order to reign in an NL team that is mostly irrelevant to them. So crazy, I don't actually believe you believe this.

I'm on the opposite end, where I don't want to see the MLBPA agree to a salary cap for various reasons, but as a baseball fan if it's between the owners killing a full season and the players accepting a salary cap, I would prefer to just a see a salary cap negotiated and agreed to. 

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

This is such a crazy statement to me, that an AL fan would happily go a full 18 months without baseball in order to reign in an NL team that is mostly irrelevant to them. So crazy, I don't actually believe you believe this.

I'm on the opposite end, where I don't want to see the MLBPA agree to a salary cap for various reasons, but as a baseball fan if it's between the owners killing a full season and the players accepting a salary cap, I would prefer to just a see a salary cap negotiated and agreed to. 

Keeping the status quo continues to make 1/3rd of the league’s franchises irrelevant. Unless you have a world class development program like Milwaukee, sustained success is not possible for the bottom revenue teams. 

Edit: I want to see big changes in this next CBA. Making slight tweaks to the current format won’t be enough. If it takes 18 months for major changes to happen, that’s the cost of doing business. Hopefully they can figure it out before a full season is lost. 

[The Great Hambino]

14 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Keeping the status quo continues to make 1/3rd of the league’s franchises irrelevant. Unless you have a world class development program like Milwaukee, sustained success is not possible for the bottom revenue teams. 

Edit: I want to see big changes in this next CBA. Making slight tweaks to the current format won’t be enough. If it takes 18 months for major changes to happen, that’s the cost of doing business. Hopefully they can figure it out before a full season is lost. 

I think the ramifications of an 18 month shutdown go well beyond the cost of doing business.  If they kill the 2027 season, then they also kill their upcoming media rights deals.  They've gone to great lengths to get all their ducks in a row to bring everything to market in 2028; history shows us that is a terrible time to stop playing games unless you are cool with showing your championship games on the Outdoor Life Network.

Times have changed since 1994.  Sports and entertainment options have become much more stratified since then.  If you exit the market for a year, you will have an incredibly difficult time finding your footing in the marketplace; that is, if you ever find it at all.  You could be killing the golden goose that is your national media rights.  And I don't know if there's a Cal Ripken streak or a Sammy Sosa/Mark McGwire/BALCO home run chase out there ready to save them this time

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

If there is a floor of 170 million, the revenue sharing will go up to help teams be able to reach that.  That is the point of the floor and ceiling is league parity including spreading the revenue around the league.  The players will want to hit 50-55% of revenue for salaries and that is what they are doing here.  170 million times 32 teams is over 5 billion in payroll minimum in a 10 billion per season revenue.

Be careful throwing around that $170 million figure. It's largely fake. Player benefits are included, as are bonuses for both MLB and minor-league players. Combine those two things, and you can lop $40-50m off that "floor".

The same goes for the owners' claim of a 50/50 split in revenue.

[Brandon]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Be careful throwing around that $170 million figure. It's largely fake. Player benefits are included, as are bonuses for both MLB and minor-league players. Combine those two things, and you can lop $40-50m off that "floor".

The same goes for the owners' claim of a 50/50 split in revenue.

I agree.  I doubt revenue sharing would go up enough to make that work.  

The 50/50 only makes sense at a revenue point.  Ia 100 million payroll with 100 million for stadium, draft, scouting, and operations can make sense but why would a 200 million payroll need 200 million for the same expenses.  Wouldn't the expenses be similar for all teams.  Around 100 million for example?

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, The Great Hambino said:

I think the ramifications of an 18 month shutdown go well beyond the cost of doing business.  If they kill the 2027 season, then they also kill their upcoming media rights deals.  They've gone to great lengths to get all their ducks in a row to bring everything to market in 2028; history shows us that is a terrible time to stop playing games unless you are cool with showing your championship games on the Outdoor Life Network.

Times have changed since 1994.  Sports and entertainment options have become much more stratified since then.  If you exit the market for a year, you will have an incredibly difficult time finding your footing in the marketplace; that is, if you ever find it at all.  You could be killing the golden goose that is your national media rights.  And I don't know if there's a Cal Ripken streak or a Sammy Sosa/Mark McGwire/BALCO home run chase out there ready to save them this time

100%

Which is why I'm steadfast in my reading of the situation that there will few, if any, lost games in 2027. I could see the owners bluffing into March, but then losing their poker face and folding before we get to April. 

There will be no salary cap in the near future. And we won't need to lose a season to get to that place like 1994. 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

Unless you have a world class development program like Milwaukee, sustained success is not possible for the bottom revenue teams. 

Unless you run your organization well, you can't sustain success? Oh! 

Regardless, there will be changes that help loser organizations like the Twins compete going forward. 

 

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

If it takes 18 months for major changes to happen, that’s the cost of doing business.

If you say so. I happen to be a baseball fan, so I vehemently disagree with this sentiment. 

[SteveLV]

I actually think if they can emulate the NFL salary model with full revenue sharing it will ENHANCE the media rights in 2028.  Sure going to be a LOT more interest from ALL the markets with the new parameters.  Also curiosity as to how it would all work out.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Be careful throwing around that $170 million figure. It's largely fake. Player benefits are included, as are bonuses for both MLB and minor-league players. Combine those two things, and you can lop $40-50m off that "floor".

The same goes for the owners' claim of a 50/50 split in revenue.

The CBA is not going to change the splits between players and owners much is the bottom line. Being careful about throwing around non-existent values in early proposals is unwarranted.

[bean5302]

I honestly have no idea what to expect of this CBA negotiation. Will we lose 2027? It seems to be a large contingent of fans actually want to lose the season because it gives them something to complain about and it's not like they go to the games anyway.

Then the are fans looking out for the poor, destitute players who are only earning $800k+ a year. Practically food stamp money.

Of course, fans who back the owners because players make too much money!

It's already hard to find people who want to come out to a baseball game. They'd rather attend any other sporting event in the cities. The soaring concessions, fees, and variable ticket pricing mechanisms have rendered it nearly impossible to get a feel for the cost of attending a game. An insane blackout policy and a broadcasting spiderweb makes watching the game broadcasts feel like a final exam. Why watch anyway? It's not like the 162 game season means much anymore anyway. A 30 team playoff grid finally whimpering to a end in late December seems like the ultimate goal. Owners have certainly done their fair share of spoiling the milk. Then there's the MLBPA who couldn't care less about what the plebians of the world want from the game opposing every single change designed to improve the game day experience as long and hard as they can simply because the changes were proposed by the owners.

I dislike both sides.

[NYCTK]

24 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I dislike both sides.

A laundry list of complaints against the owners, one against the MLBPA, and then arriving at this conclusion is just sort of intellectually lazy. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, SteveLV said:

I actually think if they can emulate the NFL salary model with full revenue sharing it will ENHANCE the media rights in 2028.  Sure going to be a LOT more interest from ALL the markets with the new parameters.  Also curiosity as to how it would all work out.

Agreed.  If not in 2028, in some future year.  The game isn't healthy right now and there is somewhere between a third and half of the league who would have little value to a potential streaming purchaser.  

The NFL has no such issue.  Netflix, Peacock, Fox, they fall over themselves to broadcast anything from the Dallas Cowboys to the Jacksonville Jaguars.  The NBA broadcast partners definitely want the elite teams, but they are also happy to broadcast up and coming stars and other marketable aspects of teams like the Dallas Mavericks.  

Baseball has shuttered itself into regional islands where some regions are 800 pound financial gorillas and others are sucker fish.  I'm not eager to lose a season, but I sure as hell am eager to right the wrongs of the balance of the league.