Mapping the Minnesota Twins' Future Payroll

[Peter Labuza]

Image courtesy of Steven Bisig-Imagn Images

Everyone from the most casual fan to Tom Pohlad agrees: if the Twins are going to be competitive, the team needs to spend more money. But how much (and when) is still up for debate. 

A couple years ago, I laid out the messy path ahead of the Twins. Beyond any familial mandate to cut payroll in 2024, one reason trouble could have been expected was that the team had built in several increases due in 2025, as well as 2026. Of course, the Twins figured out (shall we say) creative ways to ensure payroll remained low going into 2025, and they kept that pace this season. Keeping costs down seemed necessary when the team was considering a full-fledged sale to new owners. That possibility has come and gone (at least for now), though, and there are new investors on board, helping the Pohlad family out of whatever debt trouble they were ever actually in.

Now, Pohlad says he wants to get back to spending more competitively. If he's serious, he has options, and the flexibility to move in a few creative ways. Let’s look at a preview:

Payroll Year	2026	2027	2028	2029
Free Agents	$55.39	$50.64	$15.14	$0
Arbitration	$38.49	$47.3	$24.1	$25.6
Rookies	$6	$6.8	$9.9	$15.65
Correa	$10	$10	$10	$0
TOTAL (in millions)	$109.88	$114.74	$59.14	$41.25

As things stand, the Twins will basically run the exact same payroll in 2027 as they did in 2026. After that, though, the financial commitments shrink considerably. That means the Twins have something long desired by every team: financial flexibility.

Free Agency:

	2026	2027	2028	2029
Pablo López	$21,750,000	$21,750,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Byron Buxton	$15,142,857	$15,142,857	$15,142,857	FREE AGENCY
Jeff Hoffman	$3,335,294	$7,250,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
A.J. Minter	$3,411,765	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Josh Bell	$5,750,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Victor Caratini	$4,000,000	$6,500,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Taylor Rogers	$2,000,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
TOTAL	$55,389,916	$50,642,857	$15,142,857	$0

The Twins will start the offseason by dumping three free-agent contracts from their books: A.J. Minter, Josh Bell, and Taylor Rogers. That doesn’t add up to much, but the real story begins the following year. The 2027 campaign will mark the end of deals for Pablo López, Jeff Hoffman (whose salary is partially covered by the Blue Jays), and Victor Caratini. Together, the three make up $41 million in current commitments.

After that, the only free agent signed through 2028 is heart-of-the-team Byron Buxton. When his time is up, the Twins have an open road. That’s quite different from some teams, who are looking at some unfavorable long-term contracts (see: Philadelphia Phillies, San Diego Padres). Instead, the team’s current spending on free agency (or lack of any) gives a lot of wiggle room.

Arbitration

	2026	2027*	2028	2029
Joe Ryan	$6,100,000	$9,600,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Ryan Jeffers	$6,700,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Dean Kremer	$5,750,000	$6,500,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Bailey Ober	$5,200,000	$6,900,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Trevor Larnach	$4,475,000	$6,300,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Anthony Banda	$1,625,000	$2,300,000	FREE AGENCY	FREE AGENCY
Royce Lewis	$2,850,000	$5,100,000	$8,300,000	FREE AGENCY
Cole Sands	$1,100,000	$1,300,000	$2,500,000	FREE AGENCY
Taj Bradley	$780,000	$4,500,000	$6,200,000	$13,000,000
Tommy Nance	$780,000	$1,200,000	$1,900,000	$3,000,000
Kody Clemens	$780,000	$3,600,000	$5,200,000	$9,600,000
Alex Jackson	$1,350,000	Minor League Deal?
Justin Topa	$1,000,000
TOTAL	$38,492,026	$47,300,000	$24,100,000	$25,600,000

*2027 Arbitration numbers are estimates provided courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors. 2028 and 2029 are educated guesses.

Assuming Jeffers is out the door, the Twins can look at next year as one of their more expensive arbitration years. But after that, the roster slims considerably. Assuming the Twins retain the services of Bailey Ober, Trevor Larnach, and Royce Lewis (all in Arb 3, though Lewis has a fourth year if it comes to that), the Twins will see a modest increase in arbitration spending. Even the team’s biggest commitment, Joe Ryan, will not see as much as he expected, due to his rough second half. Trade Rumors predicts $9.6 million, which is $3.5 million less than his current mutual option.

Going into 2028, the only final-arbitration-year players are Lewis and Cole Sands, who (on their current career trajectories) might not cost that much—if they remain on the team. The younger core will start to earn real money, but it takes a while to go from that to being genuinely pricey. The final-arb-year players for 2029 are Taj Bradley (expensive), Kody Clemens (a wild card), and Tommy Nance (likely gone by then). 

My model above assumed that the Twins will keep everyone’s services, but that also remains unlikely. Larnach has basically no role on a team that hopes to have Walker Jenkins, Emmanuel Rodriguez, and Luke Keaschall in the outfield alongside Byron Buxton. Ober would be nice to have—even at diminished value, $6.9 million is hardly a bad deal for 120 or so innings—but whether or not he fits a future rotation makes that role much harder to determine. 

Either way, the Twins don't have many arbitration commitments after 2027, until the next generation of rookies begins to climb the ladder.

Rookies

	2026	2027	2028	2029
Luke Keaschall	$780,000	$850,000	$3,600,000	$5,500,000
Yoendrys Gómez	$780,000	$850,000	$900,000	$1,100,000
Mick Abel	$760,000	$850,000	$900,000	$2,800,000
Connor Prielipp	$753,333	$850,000	$900,000	$2,300,000
Andrew Morris	$743,333	$850,000	$900,000	$1,100,000
Walker Jenkins	$733,333	$850,000	$900,000	$950,000
Emmanuel Rodriguez	$723,333	$850,000	$900,000	$950,000
Kaelen Cullpepper	$713,333	$850,000	$900,000	$950,000
TOTAL	$5,986,667	$6,800,000	$9,900,000	$15,650,000

The Twins are on the precipice of graduating a substantial rookie class next year, which many hope will play the backbone of the team. They're certainly due for raises: MLB countered the union’s proposal of a $1.5 million minimum salary to instead bring rookie salaries from $780,000 to a clean $1 million. My calculations thus far suggested small step-ups for players on minimums, though. Keaschall will hit arbitration first in 2028, and everyone else a couple years down the road.

Correa

	2026	2027	2028	2029
Correa	$10,000,000	$10,000,000	$10,000,000	$0

One last piece fits into the Twins’ salary puzzle over the next couple years: the last payments on the Carlos Correa contract. Pohlad owes Jim Crane a check for $10 million in 2027 and 2028, but after that, the deal closes, and the Twins can forget the odd years when Correa anchored the team.

When to Spend

Pohlad has recognized that spending needs to increase now. But I think the more important truth is that the team can add a lot over multiple years. If the Twins went big on payroll spending in 2027, they could simply have a lower payroll in 2028 based on normal sloughing-off of contracts. From that, it follows that if Pohlad is serious about investing in the roster, there's even more spending room ahead than a glance at 2027 might suggest.

Of course, losing payroll means losing players. The Twins need to replace two aces (and whatever you think of Ober and Kremer) in two years (or less), while basically building a new bullpen from scratch. That might mean trades for more pricey assets, and that might mean having to double current spending in some positions. There are pieces in place (or on the way) at key positions—Marek Houston at shortstop and Vahn Lackey at catcher, for instance—but betting on prospects can be a fool’s errand (ask Jackson Holliday), and the pitching prospects have upside but unclear floors.

I think it’s fair for Pohlad to commit to a sliding scale, rather than a set number. There’s no reason to get into a bidding war out of desperation. Besides, I think we have some idea of what he’ll spend. In June, MLB proposed their salary cap system. It’s an awful idea for many reasons, but one of the proposals did include a salary floor of $171.2 million. That number wouldn't be a direct analog for current payrolls, anyway; it bakes in lots of other costs. Nor are we anywhere near actually having a cap and floor come into effect. One way or another, though, we're likely to see the Twins' payroll rise by at least $25 million this offseason—and twice that is possible.

The more important questions are about 2028 and 2029, anyway. The Twins thus will almost certainly be spending quite a few more dollars in the next few years, and unlike the last time we thought so, it won't be just to fulfill commitments they've already made. They have an open road in front of them.

View full article

[Cory Engelhardt]

This is awesome as laid out. Thank you!

[LastOnePicked]

Payroll really shouldn't be a worry for this team. The teams that are beating them soundly in this division have lower payrolls. This team need to boost its braintrust.

And the big worry for this team is that there's almost no pitching to speak of in the farm system. So they better figure out what 2028 and beyond look like. Bradley might be fine. Prielipp might continue to develop. Neither are aces. And beyond those two, only huge question marks.

[SE23]

17 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

Payroll really shouldn't be a worry for this team. The teams that are beating them soundly in this division have lower payrolls. This team need to boost its braintrust.

And the big worry for this team is that there's almost no pitching to speak of in the farm system. So they better figure out what 2028 and beyond look like. Bradley might be fine. Prielipp might continue to develop. Neither are aces. And beyond those two, only huge question marks.

Yeah, I agree, it's not the payroll that will trip us up in '27. We'll struggle to win 75 games again because we'll make all the wrong baseball decisions. It's doesn't have to be expensive to improve this team significantly. But it will require shrewdness. That's what worries me...

[SE23]

BTW -- Nice article, Peter!

[tony&rodney]

Decisions or failure to make good decisions on player acquisitions, trades, and the sort have been an issue for the Twins. Payroll has not been a problem. Yes, it would be nice if the Twins could shoulder a $160 M budget but if the roster gets filled out with has beens and DH types, nothing is gained. I'm ready for some solid moves. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?  

[SE23]

18 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?  

I have read a few articles about the cap/floor proposal, but haven't seen those details anywhere.

[Parfigliano]

3 hours ago, SE23 said:

Yeah, I agree, it's not the payroll that will trip us up in '27. We'll struggle to win 75 games again because we'll make all the wrong baseball decisions. It's doesn't have to be expensive to improve this team significantly. But it will require shrewdness. That's what worries me...

They spend foolishly

[Chembry]

3 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?  

 

3 hours ago, SE23 said:

I have read a few articles about the cap/floor proposal, but haven't seen those details anywhere.

MLBTR does a good job at detailing the proposals.  There are a number of articles there on the CBA talks, but here are links to the initial MLB and MLBPA proposals where what you are looking for is detailed.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlbpa-releases-details-of-collective-bargaining-proposal.html

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlb-submits-initial-counterproposal-to-mlbpa.html

 

[IndianaTwin]

Thanks, Peter. This is a really helpful chart and I join the others who like how you’ve laid it out. 

It does show graphically how just looking at payroll doesn’t always show a clear picture of how aggressive they’ve been in the offseason.

As noted, the expected arbitration raises already create a boost in payroll. If they would spend $20M on free agents, people would describe it as an increase. 

To compare apples and apples, say they are one-year contracts. Next year, because so many contracts fall off the books, they could spend twice as much on free agents — $40 million — and people would yell and scream about the decrease. 

[Nashvilletwin]

I’m not so sure why the author is so confident that a salary cap/floor won’t be adopted. We should then expect a long lockout assuming the owners don’t cave on that point right out of the blocks.

Regardless, let’s assume that the Twins use ‘27 to get their most promising youngsters the innings and ABs to be fully ready for ‘28.   What might the roster (and cost) of position players and pitchers look like in ‘28.

Keaschall, LF, $3.2MM.

Jenkins, CF, $900k

ERod, LF, $900k

Lee, 3B, $3.2MM (or so)

Houston, SS, $750k

Culpepper, 2B, $900k

Clemens, 1B, $3.2MM

Jeffers, C, $17.5MM (the point being we re-sign him)

Buxton, DH/4th OF, $15MM (his last year, btw)

Those nine position players total about $42.5MM. Throw in a backup C, and three more position player backups and the entire position player roster is less than $50MM (excluding extensions and Correa’ sunk cost of $10MM but, remember, with $25MM for Buxton and Correa coming off the books after ‘28).

Our starter roster might look like this:

Bradley, $6,2MM

Mick Abel, $2.8MM

Connor Prielipp, $2.3MM

Riley Quick, $750k

Plus one or two young starters at $750k each received for trading .Lopez and Ryan.

Those six starters total about $13.5MM.

Throw in a bullpen of $25MM - to be generous.

Those three position groups total $98.5MM - including Correa and re-signing Jeffers to a 4yr $70MM deal (and with $25MM coming off the books after ‘28)!

The point is that there is PLENTY of available cash even for the parsimonious Pohlads to sign a couple of SPs, including a stud #1 or #2, as well as a difference making position player or two to fill any holes that arise from the young guys not developing as desired.  If those extra, let’s say three or four, FA signings totalled $50MM - $30MM for the two SPs and $20MM for the position player(s) - we would enter ‘29 with a payroll approximating $130-140MM (including raises).

The Twins are in an incredibly advantageous position to be able to put a truly compelling, entertaining, and competitive team on the field while maintaining financial discipline.

The first step is to not lay up and to re-sign Jeffers.

 

[S Bart]

Is the EMOJI PETER?...agree it was well done 😀😁🤗

[S Bart]

A 10 million Correa reminder 

[old nurse]

12 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?  

I would guess that would be what the team has to put out in money for the players. Pay, insurance, pension.  The same components as competitive balance tax.  If they really wanted to inflate the number they could add payroll taxes paid 

[Whitey333]

My problem with the Twins payroll hasnt been with the amount, its been with how it is allocated.  Spending so much of payroll on one "superstar" like Correa and Donaldson, et al is ridiculous.  Im not a Pohlad pocket protector or a " cheap pohlad" lantern.  I just think they have had the wrong people in place to manage the payroll.  Hire a real GM to start with.  Move on from the high payroll of questionable "stars".  Someone needs to makes the difficult decisions about roster construction and payroll management.  The Pohlads themselves have always said they are not baseball people.  They need to hire a seasoned person that is.

[mluebker]

8 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Jeffers, C, $17.5MM (the point being we re-sign him)

This is the first thing Pohlad should do to demonstrate he’s serious about loosening up the purse strings and putting a serious team out there. Then unless Buxton is willing to move into the role, he can sign Bell as the everyday DH and clear out all the wannabe outfielders whose only roles seem to be taking up bench space while waiting to get at bats.

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?  

My understanding is that it includes player benefits.  That make perfect sense.  Every business includes the cost of benefits in personnel cost.  It also provides consistency for the floor regardless of if compensation is increased via salary or benefits.  It's roughly $23M/team so the payroll minimum would be $148M.

[LA Vikes Fan]

15 hours ago, Chembry said:

 

MLBTR does a good job at detailing the proposals.  There are a number of articles there on the CBA talks, but here are links to the initial MLB and MLBPA proposals where what you are looking for is detailed.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlbpa-releases-details-of-collective-bargaining-proposal.html

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlb-submits-initial-counterproposal-to-mlbpa.html

 

Thanks, I also ran this through AI (Claude) to see how it apples to the Twins, First, the difference between the "headline" payroll number we read and hear about and the proposed floor number is what's included in the number. The headline number is simply the published Cash payroll number based on the annual salaries of the players on the roster. The proposed "floor" number is the number used to compute the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT). The CBT number includes player benefits like pensions and health insurance, each team's share of the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and uses the average annual value of every 40 man contract rather than the cash actually paid that year, including the AAV for players on the injured list and 40 man players in the minors.

What this means for the Twins in 2027 is that the cash payroll or "headline" number for 2027 as the team as currently rostered is scheduled to be roughly $114.7 million as compared to the roughly $111 million "headline" payroll for 2026. The CBT number for that same roster in 2027 Is $142.1 million AFTER removing all players scheduled to be free agents. That 2027 number includes giving all of the arbitration eligible players the amount they are projected to receive by MLB Trade Rumors and using $6.8 million as the total for the pre-arbitration players filling out the roster. That 2027 CBT figure includes a $5 million increase in the cost of player benefits for 2026. The CBT number for the Twins in 2026 was roughly $127.1 million.  

The bottom line is that to compare Twins payroll from 2026 as then projected into 2027 with the proposed MLB $171.2M floor you need to compare the CBT numbers. When you do that, the result is that the Twins would need to spend an additional $29-$30 million on player salaries than they are currently projected to spend on the guys they actually have for next year to meet the $171.2 million floor. In other words, the gap is roughly $30 million, not $60 million. Effectively, the Twins could close that gap by re-signing Ryan Jeffers at somewhere between $16 million and $20 million a year, re-signing A. J. Minter for somewhere between $7 million and $10 million a year (the amount he's projected to get) and giving Pablo Lopez a raise from $21.7 million scheduled for 2027, to say, $25 million by signing him to a three or four year deal with a $25 million AAV. You do those three things, and you've added somewhere between $25 million and $35 million to your CBT payroll depending on where the salaries fall within the ranges stated. In other words. If the Twins (1) keep exactly the same guys they currently have, (2) let their free agents walk except for Jeffers and Minter who are re-signed in the salary range projected by the sources online, and (3) either give Lopez a modest raise to sign into a longer-term deal or sign a decent but not great $3M relief pitcher, they have met the proposed floor.

I hope this wasn't too boring. When I was trying to get to do was to see if this proposed salary floor meaningfully impacted a team like the Twins by requiring them to spend significant additional money on outside free agents. The bottom line is that it could do that but at least the Twins could meet that required burden by simply re-signing guys they already have at what appear to be market rates. Frankly, I think that's the whole point of the proposal; to put the lower spending teams in a position where they re-sign players they already have as they become more expensive in the market, not to increase demand for free agents. This is very similar to the "Bird exception" in the NBA deal, an incentive for teams to keep players they have developed which purportedly keeps fans interested because the personnel on the teams don't change so much year to year. Looking at the MLB owners proposed floor this way, the floor proposal actually starts to make some sense from the owner's perspective by driving fan engagement even though they're spending more money on players, and frankly also from the player's perspective as it pushes the lower revenue teams into the free agent market for players they already have and allows players to stay on teams and in cities where they and their families are comfortable without sacrificing significant free agent dollars. At least that looks like the theory.

 

[EGFTShaw]

15 hours ago, Chembry said:

 

MLBTR does a good job at detailing the proposals.  There are a number of articles there on the CBA talks, but here are links to the initial MLB and MLBPA proposals where what you are looking for is detailed.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlbpa-releases-details-of-collective-bargaining-proposal.html

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlb-submits-initial-counterproposal-to-mlbpa.html

 

I LOVE links :)  Not the golfing links so much tho

And also most American sausage "links" are UGGGG..(go to Germany during Christmas Markt and have sausage...you will be spoiled.  Same happened to me in Uganda with fresh pineapple and Oregon with fresh peaches)

Anyway, thanks the CBA links

 

[Peter Labuza]

17 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

Thanks, I also ran this through AI (Claude) to see how it apples to the Twins, First, the difference between the "headline" payroll number we read and hear about and the proposed floor number is what's included in the number. The headline number is simply the published Cash payroll number based on the annual salaries of the players on the roster. The proposed "floor" number is the number used to compute the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT). The CBT number includes player benefits like pensions and health insurance, each team's share of the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and uses the average annual value of every 40 man contract rather than the cash actually paid that year, including the AAV for players on the injured list and 40 man players in the minors.

 

I don't want to come off as anti-AI because it can be useful, but FanGraphs has pages for the Twins (and other teams) that gives you the CBT with all the benefits. They estimated $134 million for 2026. I only point to that because Jon Becker, who runs that portion of FanGraphs, knows every minutia of payroll calculations that Claude might not be able to put together.

[LA Vikes Fan]

9 minutes ago, Peter Labuza said:

I don't want to come off as anti-AI because it can be useful, but FanGraphs has pages for the Twins (and other teams) that gives you the CBT with all the benefits. They estimated $134 million for 2026. I only point to that because Jon Becker, who runs that portion of FanGraphs, knows every minutia of payroll calculations that Claude might not be able to put together.

Good to know. Claude gave me a number of $127 million so it's pretty close to what Fangraphs has, I think the ultimate point still stands unless Claude's estimate of the Twins CBT number for the guys they currently have in 2027 is off by more than a marginal amount. The hoped for take away is that a "floor" of $171.2 million in 2027 really only effectively requires the Twins to spend about $30 million to augment their current roster assuming they re-sign none of their current free agents. They can meet that number by simply re-signing a couple of guys they should be trying to keep at market rates and locking in a guy like Pablo Lopez or even Joe Ryan longer-term or signing a kind of a mid-level free-agent relief pitcher. The floor proposed by MLB does not require them to go out in the FA market after some of the bigger names or even those a tier below the bigger names. They can meet that floor by keeping some of their own free agents and paying them roughly market rates. I think that's the goal of the proposal.

BTW, I don't think you come off as anti-AI at all. AI is just a tool, it's not some omniscient being that is never wrong. It is absolutely worth double checking AI results with other sources. Chances are none of the sources are completely right, including AI, so what you did is exactly the right thing to do.

[Chembry]

30 minutes ago, Peter Labuza said:

I don't want to come off as anti-AI because it can be useful, but FanGraphs has pages for the Twins (and other teams) that gives you the CBT with all the benefits. They estimated $134 million for 2026. I only point to that because Jon Becker, who runs that portion of FanGraphs, knows every minutia of payroll calculations that Claude might not be able to put together.

Agreed on this!  I love Fangraphs roster resource pages.  I am a frequent visitor looking at all teams.

[Chembry]

50 minutes ago, EGFTShaw said:

I LOVE links :)  Not the golfing links so much tho

And also most American sausage "links" are UGGGG..(go to Germany during Christmas Markt and have sausage...you will be spoiled.  Same happened to me in Uganda with fresh pineapple and Oregon with fresh peaches)

Anyway, thanks the CBA links

 

I am a "front office" subscriber, so don't see those ads.  I had no idea they were there.

[terrydactyls]

On 10/6/2026 at 10:57 PM, Chembry said:

 

MLBTR does a good job at detailing the proposals.  There are a number of articles there on the CBA talks, but here are links to the initial MLB and MLBPA proposals where what you are looking for is detailed.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlbpa-releases-details-of-collective-bargaining-proposal.html

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/05/mlb-submits-initial-counterproposal-to-mlbpa.html

 

These two articles were written five months ago.  The only thing I got out of them was at the end of the second one.  In the summary it said that the specifics of both proposals are not worth getting into because it will all change when negotiations actually begin.

[Chembry]

14 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

These two articles were written five months ago.  The only thing I got out of them was at the end of the second one.  In the summary it said that the specifics of both proposals are not worth getting into because it will all change when negotiations actually begin.

There have been several other articles written since the ones I linked...I only linked the original ones because those are the only articles that broke down the data the original poster was looking for.  The newer articles build off those original ones.

[Chembry]

Double post...sorry

[terrydactyls]

None of us should spend any time fretting over potential spending because AI is going to exterminate all human life in the next six months.  😇

[terrydactyls]

3 minutes ago, Chembry said:

There have been several other articles written since the ones I linked...I only linked the original ones because those are the only ones that broke down the data the original poster was looking for. 

I understand.  I'm only pointing out that the article itself said preliminary discussions of "details" are useless until after negotiations have begun.

[Cris E]

4 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

None of us should spend any time fretting over potential spending because AI is going to exterminate all human life in the next six months.  😇

So how will that work with the lockout?