The Twins Boldly Bolstered Their Bullpen. Can the Rotation and Lineup Do Their Parts?

[tarheeltwinsfan]

3 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

This is how I feel too. Everyone, selfishly and understandably, hates the disparity and wish it were rectified. But what everyone refuses to admit is Goliath improves the sport. 

It gives the casual baseball fans an entry into the sport and gives the hardcore fans someone to collectively root against. 

Not a chance in the world I would give up baseball for a season so that the cheap owners are able to "level the playing field" (but more importantly improve their net worth).

 

Well said NY.

[Fatbat]

36 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

The cheap owners are all going to be supporting the Dodgers. They want the narrative so they can put in a big push for a cap to help their bottom lines. 

So much so, I kind of buy into the conspiracy that the Tigers took less to help the Dodgers for this reason. 

Yes but every player is going to want to beat Skubal and Otani to get their own payday. 

[umterp23]

Salary cap is one thing, but salary floor is wishful thinking. So we get a floor, which will help the players, but who is paying that bill? Won’t be management alone. Here come the annual but higher increases to ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc. Players don’t want the cap, might want a floor, but they aren’t paying for the brunt of that increase. Winning teams fighting for championships year in have fan bases that will absorb some cost increases, most other teams, markets won’t. Live stream this game, subscribe to 5 different services to watch this sport is getting old. Pricing out the fans will continue, I may be one of them at some point.

[saviking]

47 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Baseball has always had the haves and the have nots. throughout its  history . Great writers of prose and poetry ( The Mighty Casey and the Mudville Nine) have venerated the lovable losers  ( Dem Bums) of major league baseball.  Even a hit Broadway musical, "Damn Yankees", has captured the essence of baseball rivalry. It makes the damn Yankees, ( and today it's the wealthy Dodgers) an easy target of  our vitriol.  Look  at the  annual  spring inveigle of the Pirates and the Washington franchises., and other small market teams.  Perineal losers. Woe is me.  But  part of the allure of being a true baseball fan  is the  mutual suffering, the annual failure, the despair.. Every year the fall brings sadness and misery to the fans of 29  major league baseball teams. Only one fan base will be jubilant as the leaves die and the numbing cold creeps in. There is a reason that the phrase, "Wait til next year "is a phrase commonly associated with baseball.  I will go to my grave hating the Yankees. To hate like this is to be happy.

Well said, even if you are sadistic 😄

[NYCTK]

21 minutes ago, umterp23 said:

So we get a floor, which will help the players, but who is paying that bill?

We'd see an increase in revenue sharing. While the Twins get something like $200 million from the bigger teams this season, it'd likely need to near double in order to allow that sort of spending. 

 

[ToddlerHarmon]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Kaelen Culpepper and Walker Jenkins are not ready right now but I'm expecting that they will be up in two weeks.

I hope you're right. I fear that they might be held back by fear of a lockout next year.

[tony&rodney]

Just now, ToddlerHarmon said:

I hope you're right. I fear that they might be held back by fear of a lockout next year.

Both players need to show their best in the next two weeks. Injuries and blah performances won't work. I don't think the potential lockout has anything at all to do with whether a team is willing to call up a player. I just don't see that as an issue. 

[Jim H]

A salary floor is likely to help the players more than no salary cap. Currently there are only a handful of teams that really spend big. If you force all teams up to a 170 mil minimum for example, it will a lot more total money than what is being spent by the owners now. Of course this will likely force the salaries up for ordinary players rather than the already well paid top earners. 

I expect the owners will want a salary cap as well. At least some of them will. That could cause a divide among the owners. There is no real benefit for either the players or the owners to allow this to go to a lockout or holdout. If there is no baseball there is a very real chance that too many fans won't come back for a long time. Which would hurt both the sides.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, Jim H said:

There is no real benefit for either the players or the owners to allow this to go to a lockout or holdout.

Remember the proper framing. The owners are the only ones threatening 2027 baseball. They are holding it hostage, demanding a salary cap, and it's not on the MLBPA to accept it without commensurate benefits.

The MLBPA's only responsibility is to negotiate the new CBA in good faith, whereas we've already seen the owner's publicly negotiating in bad faith. 

[rdehring]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Are you willing to support the owners lockout and forfeit a full year of MLB so that the owners can get their salary cap? 

Yes.  And at my age if that means I never again see major league baseball, my answer is still yes.

[jmlease1]

I think there's a fair concern that the rotation and lineup might not hold up even as the Twins have made a substantial investment in the bullpen...but what did you want to happen?

I guess some of it depends on whether or not you think the Twins can get Kremer back online; if they do he's a solid back of the rotation starter who can eat up innings...something they need pretty badly at this point. If he fails, he fails, but it's not like they did nothing to support the rotation.

While improving the lineup would have been great, it was also the most challenging area to try and improve and realistically required them to 2-step this and sell as well as buy. Adding a bat would have almost certainly been at 1B, DH, or OF. We're either selling off Bell or Larnach at that point (and clearly they looked into moving Larnach to either open a spot for a prospect to actually play or to add a better bat) and Larnach has been one of the Twins best hitters all season and the streaky Bell was great in June and good in July. Clemens has certainly earned a spot, and since returning from the minors, it's hard to say Lewis hasn't either. Want to bench Keaschall? 

The lineup has several pretty good but not great hitters that would be great to upgrade from, but how available were upgrades to those spots? 

1. Catcher: kept Jeffers, not doing better offensively there
2. 1B: maybe could have improved on Royce, but for what?
3. 2B: maybe could have improved on Clemens, but for what?
4. SS: could improve on Kreidler...but aren't we better off doing that via Culpepper? (but reportedly they were nosing around Neto. That would have been a big swing and certainly send Culpepper out)
5. 3B: could improve on Lee...but who? didn't see a lot available at 3B
6. OF: always bats available, but unless you're assuming Buxton is out for a long time/the season, you're either benching Keaschall, trading Larnach (who has a 134 OPS+!), or moving him to DH and dealing Bell.

I think they were in a little bit of a tough spot on improving the lineup, especially without making it look like there was a sell-off going on or something.

We will see if they can make it go. I do think there's opportunity for reinforcements for the lineup through the minors: Culpepper moving Kreidler to the bench and dumping Gray. One of the many OF stepping up and showing they belong.

[The Great Hambino]

26 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

We'd see an increase in revenue sharing. While the Twins get something like $200 million from the bigger teams this season, it'd likely need to near double in order to allow that sort of spending. 

 

It's fair to question whether or not a formal cap is needed if the amount of revenue sharing needed to level the playing field acts as a de facto cap.  The Dodgers certainly wouldn't be able to keep up their current level of spending if enough of their revenue is re-routed elsewhere.

What's not in question is that a floor-type mechanism is needed, since the Nuttings and Fishers of the world have already shown their willingness to pocket as much revenue sharing as they can get away with.  If I'm a player, I'm not cool with taking money from teams willing to spend and giving it to teams not willing to spend unless they're required to spend it.  Otherwise it's just another form of salary suppression

The question is what can the players offer the owners as a concession to get their floor if not a cap.  This is still subject to negotiation, and the owners aren't going to grant this without some quid pro quo

[Road trip]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

This is how I feel too. Everyone, selfishly and understandably, hates the disparity and wish it were rectified. But what everyone refuses to admit is Goliath improves the sport. 

It gives the casual baseball fans an entry into the sport and gives the hardcore fans someone to collectively root against. 

 

 

Having a Goliath has little to do with financial disparity.  In the NFL it was the Steelers in the 70s, then the Cowboys in the 90s, then the Patriots during Belichek's era, now the Chiefs and/or Eagles.  There is always a Goliath to hate, even in a league where 100% of the revenues are shared.  

I'm not much of a NFL fan, but have absolutely no doubt that their business model is far superior.  It is part of the reason the NFL is hugely popular nation-wide, as every city believes they have a realistic chance at a Super Bowl in the coming decade.  The NBA learned, and moved towards a cap, floor, and greater revenue sharing this century.  They still have Goliaths as well.  Baseball could learn, but probably won't.

[Road trip]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

This is how I feel too. Everyone, selfishly and understandably, hates the disparity and wish it were rectified. But what everyone refuses to admit is Goliath improves the sport. 

It gives the casual baseball fans an entry into the sport and gives the hardcore fans someone to collectively root against. 

 

 

Having a Goliath has little to do with financial disparity.  In the NFL it was the Steelers in the 70s, then the Cowboys in the 90s, then the Patriots during Belichek's era, now the Chiefs and/or Eagles.  There is always a Goliath to hate, even in a league where 100% of the revenues are shared.  

I'm not much of a NFL fan, but have absolutely no doubt that their business model is far superior.  It is part of the reason the NFL is hugely popular nation-wide, as every city believes they have a realistic chance at a Super Bowl in the coming decade.  The NBA learned, and moved towards a cap, floor, and greater revenue sharing this century.  They still have Goliaths as well.  Baseball could learn, but probably won't.