Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Snell to the Padres?

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,641 posts

Posted 30 December 2020 - 10:17 PM

 

I can't find one analyst that agrees with this stance. 

Then you're missing a LOT of them, specifically the ones who have actually seen the players.

 

Eric Longenhagen is higher on the players the Cubs received than I am.

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#42 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,641 posts

Posted 30 December 2020 - 10:19 PM

 

Which FA starter is that good this year? Or even close? 

I'd rather have Odorizzi over Snell any day.

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#43 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,074 posts

Posted 30 December 2020 - 10:43 PM

 

Eric Longenhagen is higher on the players the Cubs received than I am.

I was going to pop in to say Longenhagen is pretty high on the Cubs side of the deal.


#44 Sielk

Sielk

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 31 December 2020 - 09:45 AM

No, winning draws fans and a World Series team just traded away a good player for budgetary reasons.

I don’t know why you’re being so obstinate about that being bad for baseball as a whole.


Cutting cost might have played a role in the Snell trade but I wouldn't call that the only reason the Rays did it.

Trading star players long before their contracts end to stock up their system is just what the Rays do. And they've been pretty successful at winning with this strategy.

It's hardly a fire sale and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some prospect the Rays got in one of their trades steps up and takes Snell's place.

That said, I agree that it would be better for baseball if revenue was distributed equally.

But to say that teams like the Rays are automatically bad for baseball? I'd prefer watching the Rays over the Angels or the Phillies anytime. The Snell trade fits with the Rays long term strategy and that strategy still makes the Rays look a lot better than certain teams (see again Angels, Phillies etc.) who squander a ton of money and still don't get anything done.

#45 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,074 posts

Posted 31 December 2020 - 11:20 AM

 

Cutting cost might have played a role in the Snell trade but I wouldn't call that the only reason the Rays did it.

Trading star players long before their contracts end to stock up their system is just what the Rays do. And they've been pretty successful at winning with this strategy.

It's hardly a fire sale and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some prospect the Rays got in one of their trades steps up and takes Snell's place.

That said, I agree that it would be better for baseball if revenue was distributed equally.

But to say that teams like the Rays are automatically bad for baseball? I'd prefer watching the Rays over the Angels or the Phillies anytime. The Snell trade fits with the Rays long term strategy and that strategy still makes the Rays look a lot better than certain teams (see again Angels, Phillies etc.) who squander a ton of money and still don't get anything done.

As mentioned earlier, I don't mind the Rays trading Snell or any other single player in their organization. It's about need, not want.

 

But look at the Rays' payroll. I guarantee you that out of the many players they've traded over the past decade, they wanted to keep some of those players but could not for financial reasons.

 

Baseball would be better if teams like the Rays, through revenue sharing and obligation (carrot and stick), were forced to maintain a more competitive payroll comparative to the league. That means teams like the Rays, Pirates, As, etc., would receive sharing to increase their payroll but also create a floor no team can drop below, say $90-100m. Add a draft lottery (or similar mechanism) and you'd all but kill intentional 2-3 year tanking, which is becoming a big problem in the sport to the detriment of fans and interest.

 

More equity between payrolls will make for a better game overall. The Rays can and should operate by shuffling players to keep open a competitive window but that shouldn't be a strategy they're forced to employ because they can't afford to keep even their modestly-paid players.


#46 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,903 posts

Posted 31 December 2020 - 07:18 PM

 

Yeah, in the early 1990's the Royals, Twins and A's were often the big spenders. MLB needed collusion to work without a salary cap and floor and reasonable revenue sharing. It's not working now.

 

It's really not about the Rays being smart moving players prior to them busing, they should have the option to go either way. 

 

Pittsburgh is the worst of the bunch though, and they often get a pass. The other mid market teams at least bump payroll for a half decade once they get a new stadium.Pittsburgh got their new stadium and jumped to the middle of the pack in payroll for only one year. 

According to Forbes the Rays made 69 million in 2019. How could they not go either way on a player upon occasion?. Snell was not worth the money to them.