What is the end game?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe

 

The league owns the internet rights.

indeed it does but the teams make their money from cable contracts. Currently streaming video is not an option for in market consumers, and the teams don’t get a large portion of their revenue from streaming.

[DocBauer]

This, if it wasn't said before, definitely needed to be said.  Earlier I said taxpayers and fans lose in this, but minor league players are used as a pawn by both sides, neither of which give a rip about their best interest.  

 

So add them on too.

 

I'd be careful also, as others have suggested, to equate revenues with popularity.

 

Thank you Levi!

 

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

[prouster]

Is this more a deep seeded "anger" towards haves and have nots?

 

 

For me, yes.

 

Owners and ownership groups are unimaginably wealthy whether or not their teams make a profit. All of them are making money literally every moment of every day. Jim Pohlad could live comatose in an iron lung and still be rich on interest alone. I will begrudge them for hoarding wealth accrued on the backs of other people.

 

I will never begrudge a player for using his talents to earn a livelihood. Most aren't taking home 10, 15, 20 million a year. The league minimum is certainly a fine salary, but the majority of players earn it for a couple years and then wash out. MiLB is a separate issue that someone else mentioned, and I think the league's treatment of its minor leaguers is the worst thing about baseball since free agency was introduced--it's a stain on the league and a failure of the player's union.

 

To sum up, I don't feel bad for people who make a few million. However, I will always side with labor, because I think it's an attitude that needs to penetrate every aspect of our society.

[Oxtung]

 

Thank you Levi!

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

 

I think everyone can agree that the amount MiLB players (and I'd throw in pre-Arb players as well) are paid is a travesty compared to the size of the revenue pot as a whole. 

 

My understanding of the situation is that while MiLB players are covered by the MLBPA they don't actually have votes within the union. In that case it is easy to see how things got to where they are today. One way or another they need voting rights, whether that is their own union or under the current MLBPA. Another option I suppose is outright free agency, though that would really hurt the Twins and other low revenue teams.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think a very related market issue is that cable tv will soon go the way of CDs and DVDs, and VHS and Cassette tapes before them. They are all becoming obsolete by a changing consumption of media. The model of big cable tv contracts and bundled channel packages must change to an online al a carte model of some kind.

I forgot to mention cord cutting when I posted my take.... this is a real problem for all sports along with all cable TV providers... but yes, this is also very valid.

[ewen21]

 

But they are not charging more for TV contracts due to paying higher salaries.
Teams are going to negotiate the highest contract that someone is willing to pay them for the TV rights. They'd be doing that even if the players made minimum wage.

Like any for profit business in America, teams are going to try to make as much money as demand will allow.
And the players, like any workforce in America, is going to attempt to get as much of that pie as the demand for their services will allow.
Neither side is in the wrong, or greedy.

And nowhere did I ask you to defend anything.

Players get paid WAY too much and cable packages are ridiculous.

The money from those TV contracts helps enable players to be paid ridiculous amounts of money.

 

Sports in general is coming upon a salary bubble.  You seem to be unwilling to concede on this one.  Interesting.

[old nurse]

 

indeed it does but the teams make their money from cable contracts. Currently streaming video is not an option for in market consumers, and the teams don’t get a large portion of their revenue from streaming.

If you are watching the cable company's product by streaming you are likely still paying for it. If there is not streaming available, the cable company wins

[ewen21]

 

Thank you Levi!

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

Oh absolutely.  This is an excellent point.  I think minor league players should make more money for sure.

https://www.reference.com/business-finance/average-minor-league-aaa-baseball-salary-5c5db71342a3765

The average monthly salary for a triple-A minor league baseball player in 2014 is $2,150 per month. Players receive this pay for the five months of the baseball season, for a yearly average salary of just over $12,000.

 

That is shameful if you ask me.  You have Yu Darvish thinking he should get 150 million dollars in guaranteed money and yet most guys in AAA are making just enough to get by.  People are going to blame the owners, but where is the union in this?  

[Mr. Brooks]

Players get paid WAY too much and cable packages are ridiculous.

The money from those TV contracts helps enable players to be paid ridiculous amounts of money.

 

Sports in general is coming upon a salary bubble. You seem to be unwilling to concede on this one. Interesting.

1) Do you have any data to show that they are paid way too much?

Something that shows what percentage of other industries revenue goes to the workforce, in comparison to the percentage of the pie that athletes get?

 

2) Of course the money from cable packages helps enable rising salaries. I'm certainly not disputing that. But those prices are set by market demand. People are apparently willing to pay those prices. The rising salaries are the players getting their share of those rising revenues. The salaries are not the cause of the rising cable prices, they are the result.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that, if owners were to pay the players less, they would just, out of the kindness of their hearts, turn down these huge bids from cable providers?

 

3)I have no idea when or if a salary bubble is going to burst. I'm not arguing anything involving that point, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting that I'm not willing to concede.

[mazeville]

 

There are a good number of posters on TD who don't want Darvish at 6 years. While I might disagree, I can certainly understand why others don't feel like paying 25+ M annually to a pitcher who will finish the contract at age 38. It's going to be ugly at the end. The same goes for Hosmer, if MN had a need at 1B, would anybody really want to give him at an 8th year?

 

There was a really good article already written about this. I agree that I would rather see revenue flow into the team rather than an owners pocket, but I also want that revenue spent wisely. I think the players should be making demands, and if I was Hosmer or Darvish I would be trying to get as much as I could too, but ultimately reality has to settle in. 

 

I agree that I'd personally rather the Twins spend their money wisely. I don't want this team in five years to be burdened with a horrible contract. I'm 100% sympathetic with that concern and have a tough time arguing against it.

 

But I just think that sometimes you have to bite the bullet and this is one such time. 

 

It would be a GREAT sign of faith in the current team. And it would send a strong message to fans: "When we say things are different, we mean it." 

 

Darvish would instantly make the Twins a legitimate contender. He would offset early concerns about pitching and would be some insurance against a decline by either Berrios or Santana -- struggles by either could basically doom the Twins' season as it currently stands. He is better than anybody available on the free agent market. 

 

And we DESERVE it. We've tolerated mediocre teams for too long. And we've watched other teams, even teams like Milwaukee, go all-in, signing and trading for big-name players in a bid to be competitive, while the Twins year after year basically go with what they have. We've given this team a brand new stadium only to watch it go on a long string of 90-loss seasons. We've been told to be patient for years.

 

Now this team is ready to contend. They just need to do it. They have no more excuses. Until they make a signing such as Darvish they will have the "cheap" label hanging around their necks like a great big hunk of concrete.

 

Just do it.

[mazeville]

 

If I'm the players I never push for a cap. That's the one thing baseball has going for it over football and basketball unions - no cap. Bryce Harper is one big year from a $500 million deal next year. Manny Machado is going to zoom up there too. That's going to reset that market and push elite salaries higher. This will make those average contracts bigger too.

 

The players union should never ok a cap. Maybe if they got rid of arbitration? It would take something crazy on the early end of player's careers.

 

I think getting rid of arbitration would be far worse for the players than a cap. FAR worse.

 

Arbitration helps provide younger players with better contracts. No arbitration means players will have to wait until free agency until they can get paid. And free agency often comes after their more productive years. So teams will sign guys to longer-term deals to buy out those arbitration years (like Dozier did -- he agreed to such a deal without buying out any free agency).

 

And what we're seeing now is teams are not eager to sign free agents to long-term deals. So getting rid of arbitration would wipe out some negotiating leverage they have as younger, less experienced players.

 

There is already a soft cap due to the luxury tax and teams are seeing the costs of that as the Yankees and Dodgers both keep their spending low to stay under that threshold. That's part of the problem this year -- there's nobody at the top driving up the cost for free agents while teams at the bottom unload salary to build for the future.

 

So if I'm players, I probably agree to a cap in exchange for that floor. Unless they can somehow prove collusion, which is highly doubtful. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree that I'd personally rather the Twins spend their money wisely. I don't want this team in five years to be burdened with a horrible contract. I'm 100% sympathetic with that concern and have a tough time arguing against it.

Thing is, in 5 years, it can't be a "horrible" contract, in the sense of restricting other moves. There will be, what, 1/25 left on the contract at that point? We may not get $25 mil worth of production in year 5, but it's not going to be a serious impediment to making other moves. Just like the last year of Mauer's deal isn't an impediment to signing Darvish now, or extending Buxton if we wanted to do so, etc. 1/25 is a short term loss that almost any deal can work around. And if that 1/25 at the end is the price we pay for getting the first 4 years for $100 mil, so be it. It's arguably cheaper and less risky than forking over ~$80 mil in prospects today to get Archer for 4/34, because we don't have to worry about replacing the prospects (or reversing Archer's 4 year streak of FIP under-performance).

 

Looking at our payroll outlook, the only time the Darvish contract would be an impediment to other moves would be now, for big cash moves (we'd still have prospects to deal). And there aren't any clearly better big cash moves to make right now.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: I'd like to ask that posters stay on the topic of the present free agent logjam, and refrain from dragging into the conversation past front offices, whether pro or con. (We've needed to take action regarding posts of both kinds recently.)

 

If you're thirsting to spark yet another referendum on the past, start a different thread please.

[mazeville]

 

Thing is, in 5 years, it can't be a "horrible" contract, in the sense of restricting other moves. There will be, what, 1/25 left on the contract at that point? We may not get $25 mil worth of production in year 5, but it's not going to be a serious impediment to making other moves. Just like the last year of Mauer's deal isn't an impediment to signing Darvish now, or extending Buxton if we wanted to do so, etc. 1/25 is a short term loss that almost any deal can work around. And if that 1/25 at the end is the price we pay for getting the first 4 years for $100 mil, so be it. It's arguably cheaper and less risky than forking over ~$80 mil in prospects today to get Archer for 4/34, because we don't have to worry about replacing the prospects (or reversing Archer's 4 year streak of FIP under-performance).

Looking at our payroll outlook, the only time the Darvish contract would be an impediment to other moves would be now, for big cash moves (we'd still have prospects to deal). And there aren't any clearly better big cash moves to make right now.

 

I think it's the sixth year that gives people the heebie jeebies. These giant contracts to 30-something pitchers just rarely work out. 

 

If he doesn't work out, in five or six years that $25 million will look awfully ugly. Imagine what the Twins could do if they didn't have Joe Mauer's $23 million contract (though he was definitely a valuable player last year) or Phil Hughes' contract.

 

But again, I just think the Twins should do it, and accept the consequences later on. Just give him the sixth year.

[howieramone2]

 

Thing is, in 5 years, it can't be a "horrible" contract, in the sense of restricting other moves. There will be, what, 1/25 left on the contract at that point? We may not get $25 mil worth of production in year 5, but it's not going to be a serious impediment to making other moves. Just like the last year of Mauer's deal isn't an impediment to signing Darvish now, or extending Buxton if we wanted to do so, etc. 1/25 is a short term loss that almost any deal can work around. And if that 1/25 at the end is the price we pay for getting the first 4 years for $100 mil, so be it. It's arguably cheaper and less risky than forking over ~$80 mil in prospects today to get Archer for 4/34, because we don't have to worry about replacing the prospects (or reversing Archer's 4 year streak of FIP under-performance).

Looking at our payroll outlook, the only time the Darvish contract would be an impediment to other moves would be now, for big cash moves (we'd still have prospects to deal). And there aren't any clearly better big cash moves to make right now.

No. A bad contract is a bad contract, no matter how you spin it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Imagine what the Twins could do if they didn't have Joe Mauer's $23 million contract (though he was definitely a valuable player last year) or Phil Hughes' contract.

What could they do? Sign Darvish? They can do that anyway. Extend Buxton? They can do that too. Take on a Verlander type salary in trade? They can do that as well (assuming the Verlander type was willing to come here).

 

The Darvish contract may not return much on-field value in year 5 or 6, but it's not going to be a major impediment by then. It will be at its greatest impedance right now, which is just fine, because Darvish's performance should be at its most valuable now and there really isn't anything else to spend the money on right now either.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No. A bad contract is a bad contract, no matter how you spin.

It's not "spin" to recognize there are different types and degrees of "bad contracts." A lot of people call Mauer's deal "bad" but at this point it is more just suboptimal. Even if Mauer was injured or playing awful, the last 1 or 2 years of a contract being "bad" is pretty benign in its effects. There is no real reason to fear the last year or two of a long-term deal.

 

Now if you want to argue that a Darvish contract *today* is worse than the alternatives *today*, be my guest, although judging from the reports it would seem the Twins disagree.

[mazeville]

 

What could they do? Sign Darvish? They can do that anyway. Extend Buxton? They can do that too. Take on a Verlander type salary in trade? They can do that as well (assuming the Verlander type was willing to come here).

The Darvish contract may not return much on-field value in year 5 or 6, but it's not going to be a major impediment by then. It will be at its greatest impedance right now, which is just fine, because Darvish's performance should be at its most valuable now and there really isn't anything else to spend the money on right now either.

 

I'm not sure why we're debating this because I'm all in favor of signing Darvish. I find this debate odd, to be honest, and think you're nitpicking a point when we both seem to agree on my major issue. 

 

When a long contract is an impediment is a pointless exercise, because it's an impediment whether it's a problem now or in six years. 

 

But, in simple terms, a six-year contract is more problematic than a four-year contract because that six-year deal carries more risk than the four-year deal. The longer the contract, the more likely it is the team gets stuck with an inexpensive, ineffective player. And the Twins cannot really afford too many bad contracts. 

 

But, if they didn't have those two contracts on board the Twins could make a play for additional players or take on additional salary. The Mauer and Hughes' contracts are more limiting that way. And Hughes, because he makes so much money, takes on a roster spot that could be given to a younger or more effective player. 

 

There's no question that both Mauer's and Hughes' contracts are problems. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I agree that I'd personally rather the Twins spend their money wisely. I don't want this team in five years to be burdened with a horrible contract. I'm 100% sympathetic with that concern and have a tough time arguing against it.

 

But I just think that sometimes you have to bite the bullet and this is one such time. 

 

It would be a GREAT sign of faith in the current team. And it would send a strong message to fans: "When we say things are different, we mean it." 

 

Darvish would instantly make the Twins a legitimate contender. He would offset early concerns about pitching and would be some insurance against a decline by either Berrios or Santana -- struggles by either could basically doom the Twins' season as it currently stands. He is better than anybody available on the free agent market. 

 

And we DESERVE it. We've tolerated mediocre teams for too long. And we've watched other teams, even teams like Milwaukee, go all-in, signing and trading for big-name players in a bid to be competitive, while the Twins year after year basically go with what they have. We've given this team a brand new stadium only to watch it go on a long string of 90-loss seasons. We've been told to be patient for years.

 

Now this team is ready to contend. They just need to do it. They have no more excuses. Until they make a signing such as Darvish they will have the "cheap" label hanging around their necks like a great big hunk of concrete.

 

Just do it.

Oh I agree with basically everything you said.

 

I've been riding the Darvish train. Honestly, I wouldn't like it, but I'd probably give him that 6th year just to get the deal done at this point. It'll very likely be ugly at the end but IMO it isn't difficult to look at it as payment for what the Twins get in years 1-3 and hopefully 4. 

 

My post was more generally about the idea that teams should hand these FAs the contracts they're demanding because the money is there, yet nobody really wants their own team to be the one doing so. I think the Twins are in a position that makes them an exception to the "spend wisely," rule but even with the worrisome outlook of the current rotation I still think there's a strong argument against handing Darvish 6 years. I, like you, just happen to view it as a necessary evil. 

[howieramone2]

 

It's not "spin" to recognize there are different types and degrees of "bad contracts." A lot of people call Mauer's deal "bad" but at this point it is more just suboptimal. Even if Mauer was injured or playing awful, the last 1 or 2 years of a contract being "bad" is pretty benign in its effects. There is no real reason to fear the last year or two of a long-term deal.

Now if you want to argue that a Darvish contract *today* is worse than the alternatives *today*, be my guest, although judging from the reports it would seem the Twins disagree.

So why were members screaming to pay off Mauer and Hughes? A few weeks back this board was flooded with members stating all GM's didn't even consider the back end of a long term contract. That has certainly been proven to be wrong. Just say no to myths!

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not sure why we're debating this because I'm all in favor of signing Darvish. I find this debate odd, to be honest, and think you're nitpicking a point when we both seem to agree on my major issue.

 

When a long contract is an impediment is a pointless exercise, because it's an impediment whether it's a problem now or in six years.

 

But, in simple terms, a six-year contract is more problematic than a four-year contract because that six-year deal carries more risk than the four-year deal. The longer the contract, the more likely it is the team gets stuck with an inexpensive, ineffective player. And the Twins cannot really afford too many bad contracts.

Didn't mean to nitpick. I understand a longer deal being riskier by definition, but I think the risk is getting misrepresented around here (not necessarily by you, but by those making the argument you were referencing). A lot of folks here seem eager to do a 4 or 5 year deal, but frankly, the marginal risk of a 5 or 6 year deal isn't that much greater.

 

Look at the Tigers. Zimmermann has been a bust so far, but he wouldn't be that much less of a bust at 4/88 rather than 5/110. Or the Sanchez deal, which was rough at the end but again, lopping off that last year doesn't change much.

 

It would take a more severe disparity, like a 1-2 deal vs 4-5, or 4-5 vs 8-10, to introduce the kind of risk that should scare the Twins off. But those don't really apply of the Darvish situation.

 

But yeah, I agree with you in general. Sorry to give an impression otherwise.

[Mike Sixel]

So why were members screaming to pay off Mauer and Hughes? A few weeks back this board was flooded with members stating all GM's didn't even consider the back end of a long term contract. That has certainly been proven to be wrong. Just say no to myths!

Want to bet on whether there are long deals signed next year? Or even still this year?

 

No one seems to feel the contract is bad for the player, and good for the team, in the first years of a long term deal, when they are worth more than they are paid....

[gocgo]

 

The greed goes both ways. The owners do assume the risk, but the players are the draw for revenues for the most part. The fix, and others have stated this in other threads, is that players should be paid more earlier and then expect more reasonable contracts later in their careers. The owners look at Pujols, Miggy, Fielder, Crawford, et al. and now have enough data to realize those are stupid contracts. The players still want their piece of the pie, which they have every right to negotiate. The problem in arriving at "the fix" is that the union reps will have to be forward thinking. More Mookie Betts type arb salaries are a step in the right direction.

When I look back on baseball, I think this all kind of got out of control when Arod was offered $252 million for 10 years.  That led to more guys juicing which led to higher salaries.  They were willing to take the risk to their bodies for the big payday.  The amazing thing is that Arod is still getting paid from that contract thru 2025 due to to some financial twists involving the Rangers bankruptcy.  Talk about a stupid contract!  That piece of the pie got a lot bigger when that contract was signed.  Now, players still want that big piece of the pie even when the numbers don't justify it.  Unfortunately, those big contracts got paid for by us.  I'd love to see it back off (contracts, ticket prices, food prices), but I don't see that happening.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So why were members screaming to pay off Mauer and Hughes?

I don't know, maybe you should ask them? For someone who frequently mocks "board favorites", it's certainly odd to see you citing board member opinions as evidence of your position.

[KirbyDome89]

 

What could they do? Sign Darvish? They can do that anyway. Extend Buxton? They can do that too. Take on a Verlander type salary in trade? They can do that as well (assuming the Verlander type was willing to come here).

The Darvish contract may not return much on-field value in year 5 or 6, but it's not going to be a major impediment by then. It will be at its greatest impedance right now, which is just fine, because Darvish's performance should be at its most valuable now and there really isn't anything else to spend the money on right now either.

That isn't entirely fair. They're in a position to sign Davish and extend Buxton because they've shed considerable payroll and revenue has surged since the last time they were expected to be competitive (2011.) That doesn't mean they've bankrolled those savings for future use (I wish,) but it has created a situation where they have more $$ to work with. This isn't a defense of the Pohlads spending habits, I'm saying this team operates under a self imposed cap and big contracts are going to be a factor under that cap. There is no getting around it. 

 

You're right, in reality these large contracts don't really prevent the Twins from doing anything. They could sign or extend whoever they want without fear of penalty. Hell, they could nearly double their payroll without paying tax. But, that simply isn't how the Twins operate. They're going to limit themselves and large contracts further those limitations. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

But, if they didn't have those two contracts on board the Twins could make a play for additional players or take on additional salary. The Mauer and Hughes' contracts are more limiting that way. And Hughes, because he makes so much money, takes on a roster spot that could be given to a younger or more effective player.

 

There's no question that both Mauer's and Hughes' contracts are problems.

I didn't mean to say there couldn't be problems, just that they were relatively minor ones. We're already making a play on Darvish. How many simultaneous opportunities to spend a lot of cash do you think we could really take advantage of anyway? Opportunities to add guys like Darvish or Verlander are rare enough that you're not really limiting yourself if you can still manage one per year or offseason. And Hughes' roster spot hasn't been a big problem in season yet (60 day DL). Maybe this winter it contributed to us losing Luke Bard? Somehow, "potentially losing 2022's Luke Bard" doesn't sound like a compelling anti-Darvish point, does it? And we could always just release Hughes if we want that roster spot back, like the Cubs and Edwin Jackson.

 

I'll drop it, because I know we are ultimately on the same side here. But I do think folks overrate the problems / missed opportunities of those contracts. To the extent that the last years of Hughes may have been a bad risk, it was probably because the front of the deal didn't offer enough upside, as we weren't likely contenders then. Not a concern with Darvish and our present roster, though.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yeah, it would take the owners doing something like letting players hit free agency earlier.

 

One thing I've always thought would be interesting is a 6 years or 29 years old thing. That way teams would be incentivized to push players to the majors a bit faster and for the guys who make it to 27 like Garver, they have a shot at a contract.

You're right, it's crazy that Garver won't be a FA until he's 33. 

 

I would tweak your proposal and maybe make it something like a sliding scale where guys drafted at 18 are under 8-10 years of team control while college age players are slotted at 6-8 years. I think drafting a guy at 18 and only having six years to squeeze out MLB production isn't going to yield a great return on investment. 

[bird]

 

If there is no collusion then teams are getting smart and are relying on younger guys who give better bang for the buck. That's their choice to make but the player's union should then be pushing for players to hit arbitration and free agency sooner -- "if you're not going to pay players later in their career, then the revenue needs to shift younger." They'll need to show a trend that this is happening (average career shorter, average free agent contract shorter/cheaper) but there will be a reaction.

 

My guess is this will be at the center of the next labor discussions.

 

Good post. Maybe one of the trends the players association will point to is the anemic level of activity of the FA market compared to teams investing heavily in their farm systems and in the IFA market.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That isn't entirely fair. They're in a position to sign Davish and extend Buxton because they've shed considerable payroll and revenue has surged since the last time they were expected to be competitive (2011.) That doesn't mean they've bankrolled those savings for future use (I wish,) but it has created a situation where they have more $$ to work with. This isn't a defense of the Pohlads spending habits, I'm saying this team operates under a self imposed cap and big contracts are going to be a factor under that cap. There is no getting around it.

 

You're right, in reality these large contracts don't really prevent the Twins from doing anything. They could sign or extend whoever they want without fear of penalty. Hell, they could nearly double their payroll without paying tax. But, that simply isn't how the Twins operate. They're going to limit themselves and large contracts further those limitations.

I meant, even within our own self-imposed limitations, Hughes and Mauer aren't really limiting us that much.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Good post. Maybe one of the trends the players association will point to is the anemic level of activity of the FA market compared to teams investing heavily in their farm systems and in the IFA market.

 

The IFA is capped now, so they are spending less there....and I'm not sure what you mean by investing in the farm. They've capped pay for draftees also, which is the major expense of the farm.