Manny Machado

[Blake]

 

Then they are morons. I love Machado's on-field antics and wish more of our players had his fire. Don't like the pitch, see if their third baseman can catch a bat. Love it.

 

But there's no reason to think the Twins are worried about his character when they've never shown the ability to go after a top free agent despite the freaking stars aligning perfectly for them here. They'll never ever ever get this kind of opportunity and they aren't taking it.

Yeah, the big back swing that hits the catcher is a scream, isn't it?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm lazy today so I'm not going to find the article to support this, but haven't teams that have one player accounting for 20% or more of the payroll struggled to make the playoffs, and never won a World Series? Manny at 8/250 would mean the payroll would have to jump to over $150m before he would be less than that threshold.

 

I'm not sure that's a meaningful point. Most teams don't spend 20% on one player. You might be looking at maybe 2 teams every year? You could pick two teams every year by some random criteria (like the highest number of guys named Logan on the roster ) and odds are those two teams won't win the World Series either. (It's even worse than that, because the 20% requirement basically eliminates the top 5+ biggest spending teams, who we already know are more likely to win the Series.)

 

Your 20% group of teams is a small, odd bunch. Is it really significant that the 2012-2014 Twins (Mauer) didn't win the World Series or make the playoffs? Same for the 2017-2018 Reds (Votto). Among teams actually trying to win, there is the 2016-2017 Diamondbacks (Greinke) -- but again, odds are against any random non-top-5 spending team winning it all over a short period of time (Arizona did make the playoffs one of those years, though). Would Arizona's odds have been better if they spent an additional $50+ mil? Sure, a bit -- and then they wouldn't have qualified under your 20% criteria anymore. Would their odds have been better if they hadn't signed Greinke, and instead signed a couple other players for ~$30 mil total? Probably not meaningfully so -- Greinke was worth 6.1 bWAR in that playoff season...

[mlhouse]

 

How is playing in those cities more value? I get New York, but I don't get it for Chicago. Why not Houston on that list? How is playing for the White Sox more value? Their fanbase is considerably smaller. Their coverage is much less than the Cubs. The city itself is not that great ... and I say that as a 19-year resident. Anything the White Sox offer, the Twins can offer.

  

The endorsement money potential of those locations dwarfs Minnesota.   It isn't baseball, but look at the differences in Zack LaVine's endorsement value once he was traded from MN to Chicago.  He just signed a 4 year $35 million shoe endorsement contract with Addidas that puts him in the elite shoe endorsement money.    If he is in MN he gets minimal money.

 

So, it isn't true that anything the White Sox can offer the Twins can offer. Seriously, if people think this they need to correct themselves.  The major markets mean more money.  Period.  End of Story.   

[Squirrel]

The endorsement money potential of those locations dwarfs Minnesota.   It isn't baseball, but look at the differences in Zack LaVine's endorsement value once he was traded from MN to Chicago.  He just signed a 4 year $35 million shoe endorsement contract with Addidas that puts him in the elite shoe endorsement money.    If he is in MN he gets minimal money.

 

So, it isn't true that anything the White Sox can offer the Twins can offer. Seriously, if people think this they need to correct themselves.  The major markets mean more money.  Period.  End of Story.

 

Sorry, but I don’t buy it, not with the White Sox. If the choice is between the Cubs or the Twins, Yeah, that’s a huge argument. Companies wanting a Cubs star’s endorsement is worth waaaaaaaay more than a White Sox star’s endorsement. You say White Sox in Chicago and most people go, ‘What’s that?’ They are the least recognized of all the teams here and most pay them little attention. When the Cubs were in the WS, wow, the whole town went nuts and the national coverage was huge. The Sox got no more than any other ordinary team got when they win the WS. And the national media kept saying how Chicago hadn’t seen a WS in a 100 years during the Cubs WS appearance. Oops, guess 2005 was forgotten. It’s really quite astounding at how little press and respect the White Sox get. About the same as the Twins. While Chicago might be a huge market, it really isn’t so for the Sox. If Machado signs with the Cubs, everyone will be tripping over themselves to get his endorsement, as a Cub. He will get no more attention than he would with the Sox as he would with the Twins. Those that would want his endorsement would want it for him, not for the team he’s on. His endorsement opportunity wouldn’t be any bigger as a White Sox in Chicago as it would as a Twin in Minneapolis. I get why you think it would, but you likely have never lived in Chicago to see the huge disparity there is between the two teams. Cubs are a national name, a national team, the White Sox are as regional as the Twins.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm lazy today so I'm not going to find the article to support this, but haven't teams that have one player accounting for 20% or more of the payroll struggled to make the playoffs, and never won a World Series? Manny at 8/250 would mean the payroll would have to jump to over $150m before he would be less than that threshold.

 

You can't buy a good team in the long run, and giving that high of a percent of your payroll to one player is asking for trouble. Injuries happen, he has ben called out for not giving it everything, why risk it? We had a catcher that was on a HOF path and people could deal with it when it didn't turn out, I really don't want to deal with all the bitching again in 4-5 years.

How has going cheap worked the last twenty years?

[gunnarthor]

 

The endorsement money potential of those locations dwarfs Minnesota.   It isn't baseball, but look at the differences in Zack LaVine's endorsement value once he was traded from MN to Chicago.  He just signed a 4 year $35 million shoe endorsement contract with Addidas that puts him in the elite shoe endorsement money.    If he is in MN he gets minimal money.

 

So, it isn't true that anything the White Sox can offer the Twins can offer. Seriously, if people think this they need to correct themselves.  The major markets mean more money.  Period.  End of Story.   

Eh. Mauer's was the face of EA Sports two years running and one of the top endorsement guys in baseball despite playing here. 

 

But that's not really our concern, ownership should just step up and sign him and let his agent worry about endorsements.

[mlhouse]

 

Eh. Mauer's was the face of EA Sports two years running and one of the top endorsement guys in baseball despite playing here. 

 

But that's not really our concern, ownership should just step up and sign him and let his agent worry about endorsements.

 

LOL.....IF Joe Mauer would have played for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA his endorsements would have been many multiples of what it was while playing for the Twins.  

 

In the end, "ownership" cannot sign what is unsignable.  There isn't a top level sports star that is going to sign in Minnesota as a free agent and it is just a fool's dream to think otherwise.  

 

The proof is in the facts.  If you look at the history of ALL of Minnesota's professional sports franchises this has been the case.  In the free agent era of professional sports, which dates back almost 50 years now, the Twins, Wolves, Wild, and Vikings have made few, if any, major free agent signings, and the Twins lag the other home town franchises in just about every aspect.

 

This isn't a fluke.  This is the reality of the factors of how professional sports economics work.

[gunnarthor]

 

LOL.....IF Joe Mauer would have played for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA his endorsements would have been many multiples of what it was while playing for the Twins.  

 

In the end, "ownership" cannot sign what is unsignable.  There isn't a top level sports star that is going to sign in Minnesota as a free agent and it is just a fool's dream to think otherwise.  

 

The proof is in the facts.  If you look at the history of ALL of Minnesota's professional sports franchises this has been the case.  In the free agent era of professional sports, which dates back almost 50 years now, the Twins, Wolves, Wild, and Vikings have made few, if any, major free agent signings, and the Twins lag the other home town franchises in just about every aspect.

 

This isn't a fluke.  This is the reality of the factors of how professional sports economics work.

Eh. Vikings signed Cousins over a NY team. 

 

The reason the Twins aren't signing the biggest free agents isn't b/c we're in MN, it's b/c the Pohlads won't make the highest bids. If the Pohlads offer an 8/300 deal and he signs elsewhere, great. But that isn't what the problem is. The Pohlads simply won't make the offer.

[Mike Sixel]

LOL.....IF Joe Mauer would have played for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA his endorsements would have been many multiples of what it was while playing for the Twins.

 

In the end, "ownership" cannot sign what is unsignable. There isn't a top level sports star that is going to sign in Minnesota as a free agent and it is just a fool's dream to think otherwise.

 

The proof is in the facts. If you look at the history of ALL of Minnesota's professional sports franchises this has been the case. In the free agent era of professional sports, which dates back almost 50 years now, the Twins, Wolves, Wild, and Vikings have made few, if any, major free agent signings, and the Twins lag the other home town franchises in just about every aspect.

 

This isn't a fluke. This is the reality of the factors of how professional sports economics work.

Cruz disagrees.

 

It's about money. I'm the salary

[TheLeviathan]

Oh yay!  Another thread that declares Minnesota can't get free agents!

 

There is one, and only one factor for free agents - money.  Pay up, or save the excuses.  It's really that simple.  There are exceptions, but they prove the rule: you want him?  Pay the man.  

[old nurse]

 

Look, if you want to imagine a worst case scenario, that's great. But that's not the job of the front office. They should be looking at where they stand today and projecting forward. We have a good farm system, right now. I don't know about stars, but it's a farm that should produce a few MLB contributors over the next 5 years. If we had a farm system like Detroit a few years ago, completely barren, or even the 2010-2011 Twins, and we knew we would need to sign multiple quality FA annually to stay afloat, that would be a different situation in assessing Machado's fit for the organization.

Of course, even our good farm today could get hit by bad luck or flop -- but in that case, we are probably doomed as an org for a few years anyway like the early 2010s Twins were, regardless of signing Machado. At least Machado might give us a chance to cover some of that with potential upside performance, or perhaps even an asset to trade to accelerate a rebuild or reload. If both fail you're not that much worse off than if just the farmed failed -- having $30 mil a year to invest in Lance Lynns isn't a meaningful remedy for a farm system that goes bust.

I am not poo-pooing the downside risk -- it's just that the downside risk is significantly lower with mid-20s infielders than with most of the examples being tossed around here. Especially one on a 8/250 contract, the suggestion of which precipitated this thread -- 8/250 today isn't all that much different than Mauer's 8/184 considering baseball inflation, and contrary to what you or others might imply, Mauer's contract was not the primary limiting factor in the performance of the Twins the past 8 years. If we are talking MLBTR's prediction for Machado -- 13/390 -- that would change things considerably too.

the Tulo contract extension says yoou are wrong.  Cano so far has proved a 5 year contract is good. Pablo Sandoval's was signed when he was still 27. bust.  Prince Fielder was an infielder. Bust after 2, signed when he was still 27

 

[old nurse]

 

The endorsement money potential of those locations dwarfs Minnesota.   It isn't baseball, but look at the differences in Zack LaVine's endorsement value once he was traded from MN to Chicago.  He just signed a 4 year $35 million shoe endorsement contract with Addidas that puts him in the elite shoe endorsement money.    If he is in MN he gets minimal money.

 

So, it isn't true that anything the White Sox can offer the Twins can offer. Seriously, if people think this they need to correct themselves.  The major markets mean more money.  Period.  End of Story.   

incorrect on Levine. NBA players make huge deals regardless of where they play.  Playing on poor to mediocre Wolves teams Garnett got a great Nike deal

[old nurse]

 

How has going cheap worked the last twenty years?

About as well as Washington , LA and Detroit

[Otto von Ballpark]

the Tulo contract extension says yoou are wrong. Cano so far has proved a 5 year contract is good. Pablo Sandoval's was signed when he was still 27. bust. Prince Fielder was an infielder. Bust after 2, signed when he was still 27

I didn't say there was zero risk. I said less risk than signing older players. So no, citing one example doesn't mean I am wrong.

 

I also referenced Machado's positional value, which your Fielder example ignores. (Not to mention Sandoval's unique physique among 3B.)

 

Although interesting that of your 3 examples attempting to "disprove" my point, for 2 of them, the signing team actually got out of a significant portion of the latter part of the contract. That's part of the equation too -- a younger player can generally generate more trade interest too, if a team decides it wants to move a player later in the deal. That's why I'd also recommend forgoing a no-trade clause in a Machado deal, if one could avoid it. (Although Machado doesn't seem like he would have any problem being traded out of Minnesota eventually, if it came to that.)

[old nurse]

 

I didn't say there was zero risk. I said less risk than signing older players. So no, citing one example doesn't mean I am wrong.

I also referenced Machado's positional value, which your Fielder example ignores. (Not to mention Sandoval's unique physique among 3B.)

Although interesting that of your 3 examples attempting to "disprove" my point, for 2 of them, the signing team actually got out of a significant portion of the latter part of the contract. That's part of the equation too -- a younger player can generally generate more trade interest too, if a team decides it wants to move a player later in the deal. That's why I'd also recommend forgoing a no-trade clause in a Machado deal, if one could avoid it. (Although Machado doesn't seem like he would have any problem being traded out of Minnesota eventually, if it came to that.)

pretty much there is no data that would really prove or disprove your point. Basically for position players one study says that 29 is on average when the decline starts. Injuries, play a huge part in the start of the phase. Fielder' neck is the freak injury that derailed his career.  Others have had an injury that starts a decline. There is no doubt in my mind that training and lifestyle play a huge role. You can look at other sports and see that. Then there are the genetic freaks. Pucket didn't slow down until the eye. They test for steroids. Athletes learn to beat the system. How much o that is going on I do not know. They do help prolong a career. Machado could be great for another 8 years like Beltre, be like say McCutchen and be merely very good. . Or be like Heyward and forget something after they ink the contract. The odds are likely that he would remain a 30+ hr throughout a 7 year contract. He could stick at short for 2-3 years.  What I don't know is what is his drive to be great is, or the passion for the game.  If money has been the goal all along, what happens once he gets it?

[Mr. Brooks]

pretty much there is no data that would really prove or disprove your point. Basically for position players one study says that 29 is on average when the decline starts. Injuries, play a huge part in the start of the phase. Fielder' neck is the freak injury that derailed his career. Others have had an injury that starts a decline. There is no doubt in my mind that training and lifestyle play a huge role. You can look at other sports and see that. Then there are the genetic freaks. Pucket didn't slow down until the eye. They test for steroids. Athletes learn to beat the system. How much o that is going on I do not know. They do help prolong a career. Machado could be great for another 8 years like Beltre, be like say McCutchen and be merely very good. . Or be like Heyward and forget something after they ink the contract. The odds are likely that he would remain a 30+ hr throughout a 7 year contract. He could stick at short for 2-3 years. What I don't know is what is his drive to be great is, or the passion for the game. If money has been the goal all along, what happens once he gets it?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't need to see data to know that a 26 year old is less likely to break down than a 36 year old is.

[old nurse]

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't need to see data to know that a 26 year old is less likely to break down than a 36 year old is.

Nobody is saying to sign a 36 year old, either, so what is the point of your comment?

[Mr. Brooks]

Nobody is saying to sign a 36 year old, either, so what is the point of your comment?

I may have misunderstood.

I thought you were saying there was no data that younger players were less of a risk to break down.

[mlhouse]

 

Eh. Vikings signed Cousins over a NY team. 

 

The reason the Twins aren't signing the biggest free agents isn't b/c we're in MN, it's b/c the Pohlads won't make the highest bids. If the Pohlads offer an 8/300 deal and he signs elsewhere, great. But that isn't what the problem is. The Pohlads simply won't make the offer.

 

Cruz disagrees.

It's about money. I'm the salary

 

Cruz has no where else that would pay even close to the money MInnesota offered.  That is our only option:  low end free agents that we significantly outbid other teams.  No star free agent is going to come here.

 

As far as Cousins, the NFL is slightly differnet because their national tv money is much more significant to teams revenues, and turning down New York is a pretty unique situation that I can see a guy with Cousins' personality doing.  Regardless, one, ONE, 1, example over the course of decades is pretty meaningless.  The Wild signed Suter and Parise.  Beyond those 3, name a high level free agent that was in a competitive bidding war that ever came to MInnesota?

[bighat]

 

$25.2 million in 2000 is the equivalent to $36.765 million in 2019 dollars with inflation.

 

Baseball aside...geez. Inflation's a b*****.

[nicksaviking]

Oh yay! Another thread that declares Minnesota can't get free agents!

 

There is one, and only one factor for free agents - money. Pay up, or save the excuses. It's really that simple. There are exceptions, but they prove the rule: you want him? Pay the man.

 

Judging by how few posters on this Twins site actually live in Minnesota, I think you’re underestimating the impact location has on these players, particularly this one. I love it here but the reputation alone is going to be a no-go for plenty of guys, particularly when you’re talking contracts in December. Anyone from around this area who has traveled south in the winter should be aware of this by the stunned look and terrible jokes made by the locals when they ask where you’re from. I’m sure there are plenty of guys who are more than happy using Minnesota to help leverage other clubs but already know they’ll never agree to a deal here.

 

There are absolutely cities and states I’d refuse to go to even if I’m staring at other contracts that would pay me 20% less but still set me up for life.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Judging by how few posters on this Twins site actually live in Minnesota, I think you’re underestimating the impact location has on these players, particularly this one. I love it here but the reputation alone is going to be a no-go for plenty of guys, particularly when you’re talking contracts in December. Anyone from around this area who has traveled south in the winter should be aware of this by the stunned look and terrible jokes made by the locals when they ask where you’re from. I’m sure there are plenty of guys who are more than happy using Minnesota to help leverage other clubs but already know they’ll never agree to a deal here.

There are absolutely cities and states I’d refuse to go to even if I’m staring at other contracts that would pay me 20% less but still set me up for life.

 

The Twins play the vast majority of their season in brilliant weather.  Every market can point to something that would scare people away.  In New York it's the lights are too bright.  In Texas or Phoenix it's the heat.  For Seattle it's rain.  It's always some excuse.

 

Money talks.  As Nelson Cruz proved and Dave St. Peter has confirmed.  The problem is not the Twins' FO vs. MN Climate.  It's Twins' FO vs. a Climate of Being Cheap.

 

This excuse is old, let's stop with it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nobody is saying to sign a 36 year old, either, so what is the point of your comment?

FWIW, you jumped into this by responding to my comment, which said "the downside risk is significantly lower with mid-20s infielders than with most of the examples being tossed around here" (i.e. Pujols, Fielder, Wright, Mauer, Greinke, and even Felix Hernandez, who were all brought up previously in this thread to argue against a Machado deal, when none of whom were mid-20s infielders when they started their longest contracts).

 

If you think anyone is saying there is no risk to a Machado contract, you are mistaken. We all agree there is risk -- just debating how much and whether it's an acceptable amount to the current Twins.

 

There is certainly less risk (not zero, but less) in a Machado deal up to 8/250 than in Pujols' contract, so the usefulness of the Pujols deal as a cautionary tale is suspect. I'd argue that such a deal for Machado might be less risky than the Mauer deal was back in 2011 -- Machado's not a catcher, can play everyday, is slightly younger. Mauer had off-field advantages -- he was destined for the Twins HOF, would always remain marketable/lovable even if his team/performance declined -- but that cuts both ways too: it was never realistic to trade Mauer either, even if it made sense for the team. And of course, the surrounding organization and farm system here seems much better in 2019 than in 2011, suggesting that Machado's best years are less likely to be wasted.

 

Of course, maybe the Mauer deal isn't the best benchmark, but in the absence of any similar investment right now or for the next few years, I think these kind of commitments are worthy of debate and consideration.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Judging by how few posters on this Twins site actually live in Minnesota, I think you’re underestimating the impact location has on these players, particularly this one.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard anything to suggest that Machado is particularly sensitive about the location of his destination. His top two suitors are Philadelphia and the lesser Chicago team. His hometown is Miami, which is a pro baseball afterthought. He strikes me as a bit of a renegade in this regard, which could suggest he'd be amenable to a weak or nonexistent no-trade clause, on the presumption that he would welcome a trade to a contender that wanted him in the future.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The endorsement money potential of those locations dwarfs Minnesota. It isn't baseball, but look at the differences in Zack LaVine's endorsement value once he was traded from MN to Chicago. He just signed a 4 year $35 million shoe endorsement contract with Addidas that puts him in the elite shoe endorsement money. If he is in MN he gets minimal money.

 

So, it isn't true that anything the White Sox can offer the Twins can offer. Seriously, if people think this they need to correct themselves. The major markets mean more money. Period. End of Story.

Baseball endorsement deals don't seem that big:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2018/04/11/major-league-baseballs-highest-paid-players-for-2018/amp/

 

The largest endorsement income listed there is $3.2 mil (Stanton). Only he and Trout ($2.5 mil) exceed $1 mil in endorsements. Nothing to sneeze at, but also nothing that couldn't be offset by a slightly larger salary.

 

I think money is still the key, but in baseball, that's primarily salary. Which is guided largely by team revenue, which is dominated by a few major market teams...

 

(edited for grammar)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Cruz has no where else that would pay even close to the money MInnesota offered. That is our only option: low end free agents that we significantly outbid other teams. No star free agent is going to come here.

 

As far as Cousins, the NFL is slightly differnet because their national tv money is much more significant to teams revenues, and turning down New York is a pretty unique situation that I can see a guy with Cousins' personality doing. Regardless, one, ONE, 1, example over the course of decades is pretty meaningless. The Wild signed Suter and Parise. Beyond those 3, name a high level free agent that was in a competitive bidding war that ever came to MInnesota?

Free agency is fairly limited in the NFL by a variety of factors. Hence why Kirk Cousins was considered a premier free agent. Seriously, there aren't a lot of memorable free agents in their prime in the NFL's history -- certainly nothing like the other major sports leagues. I don't think it is particularly damning that the Vikings haven't signed any/many. More damning is their lack of drafting/developing/retaining a star QB.

 

Interesting that your MN high level FA example comes from the NHL. A salary cap league, with similar low endorsement money as MLB (relative to the NBA and NFL), so it makes sense that stars could choose from a greater variety of destinations.

 

Although maybe the luxury tax is bringing MLB a little closer to that? The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs can't quite sign everyone anymore. Seems like more FA are gravitating to the next set of markets, and under the right conditions, even markets like Minnesota could be able to get into the bidding sometimes (if they are willing!).

[USAFChief]

 

LOL.....IF Joe Mauer would have played for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA his endorsements would have been many multiples of what it was while playing for the Twins.  

 

In the end, "ownership" cannot sign what is unsignable.  There isn't a top level sports star that is going to sign in Minnesota as a free agent and it is just a fool's dream to think otherwise.  

 

The proof is in the facts.  If you look at the history of ALL of Minnesota's professional sports franchises this has been the case.  In the free agent era of professional sports, which dates back almost 50 years now, the Twins, Wolves, Wild, and Vikings have made few, if any, major free agent signings, and the Twins lag the other home town franchises in just about every aspect.

 

This isn't a fluke.  This is the reality of the factors of how professional sports economics work.

From a Dave St Peter interview:

 

On whether it's been hard to get free agents to come to Minnesota for non-monetary reasons:

 

"No. It's dollars and years. It's dollars and years. And at the end of the day, a player might have Option A and Option B, depending where they're from. He may be able to take less in Option A, but at the end of the day it's ultimately going to come down to dollars and years."

 

https://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/05/transcript-of-twins-president-dave-st-peter-on-gleeman-and-the-geek/

 

A specific player might (and probably will, we all have personal preferences on where we might like to live and work) have a preference for the East Coast, or Florida, or Minnesota. But it's likely not the biggest factor, just one of many, all subordinate to salary.

 

Just like most of us normal folk. I wouldn't want to live in swampy, humid Florida. But if my job offer took me there, I'd make do.

[Squirrel]

 

From a Dave St Peter interview:

 

On whether it's been hard to get free agents to come to Minnesota for non-monetary reasons:

 

"No. It's dollars and years. It's dollars and years. And at the end of the day, a player might have Option A and Option B, depending where they're from. He may be able to take less in Option A, but at the end of the day it's ultimately going to come down to dollars and years."

 

https://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/05/transcript-of-twins-president-dave-st-peter-on-gleeman-and-the-geek/

 

A specific player might (and probably will, we all have personal preferences on where we might like to live and work) have a preference for the East Coast, or Florida, or Minnesota. But it's likely not the biggest factor, just one of many, all subordinate to salary.

 

Just like most of us normal folk. I wouldn't want to live in swampy, humid Florida. But if my job offer took me there, I'd make do.

Saying "He won't come here" is a coping mechanism for some, to defray disappointment. For others it's become an acceptance of the status quo. But you still go out and make your best offer, you still go out and make a competitive bid for someone who will make your team, well, competitive beyond the central. Dollars and years. And if the player doesn't want it for other reasons out of your control, so be it. But it might just be they sign with you, too. It's so frustrating. We have never had this kind of opportunity in flexible payroll and a hugely talented FA opportunity ... it just fits so well. To me it just seems a no-brainer. For all we know they could be making some calls and asking some questions. I will give them the benefit of the doubt there because I don't know. But ... I hope if they are, they are doing so with serious intent. Because they should be.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Coping is exactly it.  You focus on something you can't change so you don't have to focus on what you could change.  

[nicksaviking]

Coping is exactly it. You focus on something you can't change so you don't have to focus on what you could change.

 

What makes you think the “coping” isn’t coming from those insistant that the front office is completely at fault for not getting the preferred free agents here?

 

You want change and you want this to get fixed? We need a salary cap and a salary floor not significantly far apart. Leadership should be fighting for this.