MLB proposed a $100 million payroll minimum during talks with the MLBPA.

That minimum would reportedly be $100 million in the new plan. Money collected from team payroll taxes would fund some of the lesser teams unable to meet the $100 million minimum. That could potentially create a more even playing field and close the gap between the small and big market teams. There is no word on when MLB would like for this to happen if it went through. 

DodgersNation.com

It’s not clear how this would work. With 26 man rosters one way would be to make the minimum salary a bit over $3.8 million. In a way I like this, because teams likely won’t want to spend that much money on players slightly better than replacement level. What it doesn’t give them is much room to maneuver under the cap. I do believe that a much higher minimum salary would need to be part of this proposal. By raising the minimum salary to $2 million, teams should want to spend that money on somewhat better low-level players.

I like this minimum salary, because the $52 million it forces teams to spend accounts for the revenue from the National TV contracts.

How they get to $100 million from there is the tough part. I would allow teams to start the season under $100 million. That should carry a risk, however. A team that winds up with a losing record and would otherwise get revenue sharing gets a huge cut in that sharing, and still has to make up the difference at the end of the year to the their underpaid team. Teams that win with a low salary get a bonus from revenue sharing to make up the difference. The numbers need to be set so that a small market team does not take the risk of losing revenue sharing money and spends the $100 million up front.

I think a payroll floor could work, but the incentives have to be right. Note that the MLBPA rejected this idea, since they believe it would be tied to a fixed salary cap.