Which Young Twins Should Get an Extension This Winter?

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of Kiyoshi Mio - IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect

Major League Baseball has increasingly become a league where teams are willing to bet on young players before the players have had much opportunity to cash in on their potential.

That trend has accelerated in recent years. Teams have handed out long-term contracts to players with very little service time, and some have even made commitments before a player reaches the majors. In 2026 alone, Colt Emerson, Cooper Pratt and Luis Lara signed extensions before making their MLB debuts, while several other highly regarded young players received significant guarantees almost immediately after reaching the majors.

The strategy is relatively simple. A team gives a young player financial security early, while potentially buying out arbitration seasons and some free-agent years at a lower cost than the player might command after establishing himself as a star.

The Minnesota Twins have watched that trend from the outside. This winter, they could finally decide to participate. General manager Jeremy Zoll said the organization plans to explore contract extensions with some of its young players during the offseason. Zoll also explained why he prefers to have those discussions away from the regular season.

“As it pertains to extension conversations, that’s definitely something we’re going to explore this offseason and going forward,” said Zoll. “I know there have been in-season extensions around the league. Personally, I don’t think it serves anyone particularly well to potentially create a distraction for players during the season on those fronts. So those will be things we’ll engage in this offseason and we’ll see how that all shakes out.”

That leaves a fascinating question for the Twins. Who exactly should they be talking to?

The Twins Have Seen Both Sides of This Equation

There is an obvious appeal to getting ahead of the market. If a player becomes a star, the price is going to increase dramatically. If the Twins can identify that player early enough, they could potentially secure several years of production at a manageable cost.

But the organization also has plenty of evidence for why patience can be valuable. As explored earlier this year, the Twins had opportunities to make long-term commitments to players such as Royce Lewis, Jose Miranda and Matt Wallner when their perceived values were significantly higher.

Lewis looked like an obvious extension candidate following his spectacular 2023 campaign. He hit .309/.372/.548 with 15 home runs and a 149 OPS+ in 58 games before starring in the postseason. Today, Lewis is coming off a disappointing 2026 season in which he hit .227/.287/.380 with a 86 OPS+ and 0.9 WAR.

Miranda provides another cautionary tale. After posting a 114 OPS+ as a rookie in 2022, his production collapsed in 2023 (55 OPS+) before rebounding in 2024 (112 OPS+). There were flashes of his strong bat-to-ball skills, but he never put it all together at the big-league level. He was eventually out of the organization and played the entire season in the minors this year. 

Wallner provides another example of the uncertainty surrounding young players. His power looked like something the Twins could build around, but injuries and strikeouts have prevented him from establishing himself as a consistent everyday player. In 2026, he hit just .167/.259/.292 with a 55 OPS+ in 34 games before being demoted to Triple-A for the remainder of the season. 

The lesson isn't that extensions are bad. It is that the Twins need to be extremely selective about which players receive them. That brings us to this winter's potential candidates.

Taj Bradley

The case for an extension: Bradley might have the strongest argument among Minnesota's young pitchers. The 25-year-old right-hander made 31 starts and threw 178 1/3 innings in 2026, posting a 3.73 ERA, 3.82 FIP and 205 strikeouts. He produced 4.4 WAR while becoming one of the most important pieces of Minnesota's rotation. There is also a reason to believe the best is still ahead as he is only 25-years old. Bradley has already demonstrated the ability to miss bats while carrying a starter's workload, and he has three years remaining before free agency.

The case against an extension: Pitching is inherently risky, particularly when discussing a multi-year commitment. Bradley has only one season at this level of workload and production. His 1.22 WHIP and 76 walks also show there is still room for improvement. The Twins would be buying into both his 2026 breakout and the expectation that he can sustain it.

Luke Keaschall

The case for an extension: Keaschall looks like exactly the type of player teams target with early extensions because he is under team control through 2031. At 23, he followed his impressive 2025 debut with a full 2026 season in which he hit .282/.374/.407 with 10 home runs, 20 stolen bases and 2.2 WAR. His 120 OPS+ shows his offensive production was comfortably above league average.  More importantly, Keaschall's game isn't dependent on one tool. He provides on-base ability, speed while still having room to develop more power. The Twins can plug him into the top of the lineup for the foreseeable future. 

The case against an extension: His power profile is still somewhat uncertain. Ten home runs in 620 plate appearances isn't overwhelming, and his .407 slugging percentage leaves some questions about his long-term offensive upside. His defensive metrics also weren't particularly strong across his various positions in 2026. An extension would be betting that Keaschall's overall offensive profile continues to develop.

Walker Jenkins

The case for an extension: Jenkins may have the highest offensive ceiling of anyone on this list. The fifth overall pick in 2023 entered 2026 as one of baseball's top prospects and ultimately reached the majors at age 21. Before his promotion, Jenkins produced a .323/.417/.559 line with 14 home runs, 17 stolen bases and a 151 wRC+ across 73 minor-league games.

His major-league debut was much more modest, as he hit .226/.293/.393 with a 91 OPS+ in 93 plate appearances. But that small sample doesn't erase the larger body of work. Jenkins remains one of the organization's most intriguing long-term building blocks.

The case against an extension: This is precisely where the Lewis lesson comes into play. Jenkins has barely begun his major-league career. The Twins would be committing significant money based primarily on prospect pedigree and minor-league performance rather than established MLB production.

There is also the Scott Boras factor. Jenkins' representation could make an early deal more difficult to negotiate, particularly if the player believes his eventual earning power could be enormous.

Connor Prielipp

The case for an extension: Prielipp's underlying numbers provide more optimism than his ERA. The left-hander finished 2026 with a 4.87 ERA but a 3.73 FIP over 125 2/3 innings. He struck out 128 hitters while allowing only 14 home runs. Considering his lengthy injury history, simply completing a full season while establishing himself as a major-league starter represents an important step forward. If the Twins believe his FIP is more representative of his future performance, there could be an opportunity to buy low before his results catch up with his underlying skills.

The case against an extension: This is a much larger projection than Bradley. Prielipp still hasn't demonstrated sustained major-league success, and his 1.29 WHIP and 4.87 ERA leave plenty of uncertainty. He also has a history of significant injuries, which makes a long-term pitching commitment particularly complicated. There is a reasonable argument for simply letting Prielipp prove more before committing.

Kaelen Culpepper

The case for an extension: Culpepper's 2026 season provided two encouraging data points. First, he dominated Triple-A, hitting .271/.367/.478 with 14 home runs and 17 stolen bases in 74 games. Then he reached Minnesota and held his own, hitting .274/.328/.393 with a 102 OPS+ over 33 games. The combination of shortstop defense, athleticism and offensive upside makes Culpepper an intriguing long-term piece.

The case against an extension: He has only 128 major-league plate appearances. That's not enough information to know whether his offensive production will translate over a full season. His 28 strikeouts against just six walks in 128 plate appearances also highlight areas that need improvement. Culpepper may be a player the Twins should monitor closely rather than rush to sign.

Emmanuel Rodriguez

The case for an extension: Rodriguez remains one of the organization's highest-upside offensive players. He reached the majors in September after another productive minor-league season (140 wRC+) and made his debut at 23. His combination of power, plate discipline and athleticism has made him one of the more intriguing prospects in the system for several years. The Twins would be buying before Rodriguez has had a chance to establish himself as a major-league hitter. That's exactly what makes an early extension potentially valuable.

The case against an extension: There simply isn't enough MLB evidence yet. Rodriguez went 8-for-45 with two home runs and a .178/.229/.400 line during his brief major-league debut. That obviously isn't enough to make a judgment about his future, but it demonstrates how much uncertainty remains. There are also questions about whether his long-term defensive home will maximize his value. The offensive upside is exciting, but the Twins would be paying for potential.

Where Should the Twins Start?

There is no reason for Minnesota to hand out extensions simply because other teams are doing it. The purpose of an early extension is to identify a player before the market catches up and create cost certainty before arbitration and free agency become expensive. But the Lewis, Wallner, and Miranda examples demonstrate how quickly that calculation can change.

Bradley has the strongest major-league track record of this group. Keaschall has the largest body of MLB work among the position players. Jenkins has perhaps the greatest long-term ceiling. Prielipp represents an intriguing buy-low opportunity, while Culpepper and Rodriguez remain higher-risk bets on potential.

The Twins don't need to pick just one. But they also don't need to force the issue with all six. Zoll has made it clear that extensions will be part of the offseason conversation. Now the difficult part begins: deciding which young players have shown enough to justify turning potential future value into guaranteed money today.

For a franchise trying to build its next competitive window, those decisions could be among the most important of the winter.

---

What player or players should the Twins approach for contract extensions this winter? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[Jeff K]

Bradley and Keaschall are easy choices to offer extensions.  I think Kaelen Culpepper is the next best choice.

[DJL44]

They control Connor Prielipp through age 30. No need to offer an extension.

[MapleGroveTwinsFan]

Sometimes I wonder how much research you put into things? 

"But the organization also has plenty of evidence for why patience can be valuable. As explored earlier this year, the Twins had opportunities to make long-term commitments to players such as Royce Lewis, Jose Miranda and Matt Wallner when their perceived values were significantly higher"

They already had Lewis locked up though his age 29 season and was coming off majors injuries, extending somebody in that situation is not what teams in the majors do. Wallner they have/had locked until 31 already, I believe the same with Miranda. The same reason for Ryan and Ober, the reason for extending them to to keep them during their prime, not on the other side of 30.

That group of players are nothing like Keaschall, Jenkins, Erod, and Culpepper, I think Keaschall, Jenkins and Culpepper are obvious guys they should be talking to about this, Erod, probably still a year away.

Bradley is the good question, I believe he is locked up though age 28, so probably a guy they should as well, but might another year like they did with Lopez  (somebody you failed to mention in the article)

Prielipp is in the same boat as Ober and Ryan were already locked up though his prime years, but if the Twins think he is on the Jacob deGrom path you have to consider it, but you have believe his career is on the deGrom/Skubal path to do that. 

Teams extend guys that made their major league debut at 19.20.21 and 22, maybe a rare occasion 23, but not later than because if the debut after that they already have them though their prime years. Which explains, the Polanco, Sano, Kepler, Buxton, and Lopez and not the Lewis, Julien, Wallner, Larnach, Ryan and Ober's of the world. Seems like a detail that should be in the article, not talking about Wallner.

[mluebker]

I think they wait to see what’s in the new CBA before extending anyone. It has the potential to be a game-changer. 

[Blyleven2011]

Evaluation of talent , they don’t seem to develop AAA Talent once they reach the major league level ( Miranda, Julian , wallner ) are perfect examples especially under the Rocco and falvey years …

the twins are trimming payroll by reducing scouting department and most likely relying on computer analytics analysis …

do we have stars on the roster, we definitely have some good players , five tool players in my opinion should be considered for locking up into an extension , keaschall once he learns playing a better defensive position and I think he will , Bradley showed 1 up and down season, has to cut down on the walks …

another year on establishing themselves at the major league level on the other mentioned players before extension talks  , the new prospects might make it on the roster coming out of spring training but some of them could end up back in AAA for more seasoning …

Do you believe anything coming out of the front office , could it be that it is another maneuver to create fan interest , I could see it , in the end they could say we tried to extend some players to an extension but we were to far apart in terms …

 

[Twins GFP]

Bradley for 4 years makes sense (I personally think anything longer than 4 years is too high a risk on any pitcher). Buy out a year of FA with cost control.

I can't see pulling the trigger on anyone else on this list right now. Do you really want to lock up Keaschall for 7+ years when his bat has been good, not great, and he can't stay on the field defensively?
Everyone else is still in prove-it mode.

[killercarewoliva]

I say cut in half all major league salaries. then you can cut in half the ticket prices which are crazy. unless you're sitting in the upper deck, then more people can come to a game instead of selling season tickets that could cost as much as $100,000 for a family of four. however, if you're in New York Yankees with tickets has had $1,600 or more, how much is that for 81 games? it's unbelievable but I seem to be the only one complaining about. it's like paying $10 a pound for bananas and people do. as for extensions, I have seen a number of times a player gets a huge extension and the next year he's not as good. you know he knows he doesn't have to be but hopefully he doesn't really think like that. just doesn't work as well every year. The other team gets to understand players weaknesses at the plate and take advantage of it. but then you have to make adjustments and sometimes they are able to. maybe Lewis is a case in point on that. as for the pitching how many guys in a season have arm surgeries? throwing a ball like that your arm wasn't designed for that. those ligaments and tendons break down. super nice guy Mr. Lopez gets paid what 23 million dollars. this is why I certainly don't recommend fat salaries for a guy who's only going to play 15% of the team's games. we traded the best hitter in baseball for average for a guy that plays 15% of the team's games. go ahead and tell me because I don't understand that. Rod Carew would come just to watch Arraez hit.. I think a player needs 3 years on the major League level to get a large contract. based on the crazy money today, look at Joe Ryan. I think he's making around 6 million million and next year isn't it going to be about 13 million so we finally starts to get the big money but look what's happened to him in the second half. how is he even worth the 6 million when he can't pitch the second half of the season? I just say start taking a chance beginning in year four. The tram will have a lot better chance that way.

[MapleGroveTwinsFan]

25 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

I say cut in half all major league salaries. then you can cut in half the ticket prices which are crazy. unless you're sitting in the upper deck, then more people can come to a game instead of selling season tickets that could cost as much as $100,000 for a family of four. however, if you're in New York Yankees with tickets has had $1,600 or more, how much is that for 81 games? it's unbelievable but I seem to be the only one complaining about. it's like paying $10 a pound for bananas and people do. as for extensions, I have seen a number of times a player gets a huge extension and the next year he's not as good. you know he knows he doesn't have to be but hopefully he doesn't really think like that. just doesn't work as well every year. The other team gets to understand players weaknesses at the plate and take advantage of it. but then you have to make adjustments and sometimes they are able to. maybe Lewis is a case in point on that. as for the pitching how many guys in a season have arm surgeries? throwing a ball like that your arm wasn't designed for that. those ligaments and tendons break down. super nice guy Mr. Lopez gets paid what 23 million dollars. this is why I certainly don't recommend fat salaries for a guy who's only going to play 15% of the team's games. we traded the best hitter in baseball for average for a guy that plays 15% of the team's games. go ahead and tell me because I don't understand that. Rod Carew would come just to watch Arraez hit.. I think a player needs 3 years on the major League level to get a large contract. based on the crazy money today, look at Joe Ryan. I think he's making around 6 million million and next year isn't it going to be about 13 million so we finally starts to get the big money but look what's happened to him in the second half. how is he even worth the 6 million when he can't pitch the second half of the season? I just say start taking a chance beginning in year four. The tram will have a lot better chance that way.

That is the thing about sports or entertainment for that matter, you can spend as little or as much as you want to. You catch watch all the games for free if you are willing, you can pay big bucks to go, or someplace in the middle. You have that choice.

 

[killercarewoliva]

1 minute ago, MapleGroveTwinsFan said:

That is the thing about sports or entertainment for that matter, you can spend as little or as much as you want to. You catch watch all the games for free if you are willing, you can pay big bucks to go, or someplace in the middle. You have that choice.

 

 

1 minute ago, MapleGroveTwinsFan said:

That is the thing about sports or entertainment for that matter, you can spend as little or as much as you want to. You catch watch all the games for free if you are willing, you can pay big bucks to go, or someplace in the middle. You have that choice.

 

can't any older people respond because the choice is ludicrous. I'm not going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread. that choice does not need to be there. it's called scanning the public.

[Possumlad]

7 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

 

can't any older people respond because the choice is ludicrous. I'm not going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread. that choice does not need to be there. it's called scanning the public.

I'm not sure a loaf of bread is an apt comparison to a discretionary entertainment product... Then again, a stale loaf a bread does remind me of the product the Twins put on the field for much of the second half. So maybe you're on to something here.

[Coach Wheels]

49 minutes ago, Twins GFP said:

Bradley for 4 years makes sense (I personally think anything longer than 4 years is too high a risk on any pitcher). Buy out a year of FA with cost control.

I can't see pulling the trigger on anyone else on this list right now. Do you really want to lock up Keaschall for 7+ years when his bat has been good, not great, and he can't stay on the field defensively?
Everyone else is still in prove-it mode.

This was my thought as well. Locking up Bradley makes sense, understanding that pitchers are fragile. No one else on the list is in the discussion for me and the idea of waiting on all of them until a new CBA is signed would also make a lot of sense.

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

I think they wait to see what’s in the new CBA before extending anyone. It has the potential to be a game-changer. 

I think more so the players would want to wait for an extension because things may radically change in the CBA for the younger players, be it a lost year of control for teams, massive raises in pre-arb or arbitration years, or something unforeseen. 

Locking yourself into a long-term deal that could be instantly outdated as a rookie would be a pretty poor decision as an agent. 

[killercarewoliva]

1 minute ago, Possumlad said:

I'm not sure a loaf of bread is an apt comparison to a discretionary entertainment product... Then again, a stale loaf a bread does remind me of the product the Twins put on the field for much of the second half. So maybe you're on to something here.

thank you for your replying. what I'm trying to say as for me nobody is worth $100,000 a game and we watch somebody making that kind of money is crazy. at age 17 I sat behind home plate for $4.50. That's probably equal to just under $100 today but tickets can be be over $1,000 or more today

[killercarewoliva]

18 minutes ago, MapleGroveTwinsFan said:

That is the thing about sports or entertainment for that matter, you can spend as little or as much as you want to. You catch watch all the games for free if you are willing, you can pay big bucks to go, or someplace in the middle. You have that choice.

 

if I get more than one message I can only go see one of them. I can't go back and get the other one that's gone. so if I don't reply that's why

[MackMan]

14 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

 

can't any older people respond because the choice is ludicrous. I'm not going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread. that choice does not need to be there. it's called scanning the public.

Probably not because we weren't around when sliced bread was made, bud. Again. If you don't want to pay $50 for a loaf of bread, you don't have to. Make it yourself. Have a friend or neighbor make one. IDK why you're constantly complaining about costs when you stated yesterday you haven't been to a game and would rather watch on TV. 

At this point I feel as if you're making the same argument on multiple different threads and posts. Cut salaries here, cut salaries there. This is these players livelyhood. They don't get to play ball for 30-40 years. They get 10-15 years and that is if their body doesn't break down doing this. 

[NYCTK]

19 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

can't any older people respond because the choice is ludicrous. I'm not going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread. that choice does not need to be there. it's called scanning the public.

There's a new rye loaf in Manhattan that's going for $60! 

But I just want to point out you're not forced to purchase it, nor are Yankee fans required to purchase $1,600 tickets for a family of 4. Nor are you required to purchase an entire season ticket package. 

You're allowed to buy $10 tickets, or $20, or $60, or $150. There are many great options available! 

I can promise you we don't need to punish the players because you're personally annoyed. 

[MapleGroveTwinsFan]

13 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

thank you for your replying. what I'm trying to say as for me nobody is worth $100,000 a game and we watch somebody making that kind of money is crazy. at age 17 I sat behind home plate for $4.50. That's probably equal to just under $100 today but tickets can be be over $1,000 or more today

Got to be honest I really have no idea what you are saying, but if you want to sit close to a game, high school baseball is free, so are the gophers, unless you want a seat back chair (season tickets for those are 130), maybe a town ball game? The reason professional sports tickets are so expensive is because people are willing to pay the price, simple as that, Vikings tickets are outrageous but they are sold out every game.

Have you been to a movie lately or a play, or a concert? if they just would take less money, the seats would be cheaper. I mean if they would pay the baresta, latte's would be cheaper. 

[killercarewoliva]

2 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

There's a new rye loaf in Manhattan that's going for $60! 

But I just want to point out you're not forced to purchase it, nor are Yankee fans required to purchase $1,600 tickets for a family of 4. Nor are you required to purchase an entire season ticket package. 

You're allowed to buy $10 tickets, or $20, or $60, or $150. There are many great options available! 

I can promise you we don't need to punish the players because you're personally annoyed. 

I can sit behind home plate for $4.50 that was 1967 in 1992. I could sit behind home plate for $12.50 the next year. it went up to $15. that's in Baltimore. I want to see the game. I don't want to have to pay $1,000 to see the game. you can't see the game when you're paying $10. not like I want to see it. I will not be cheated at a sporting event or at a music event. if the price is way too high I want to see whoever play I'm not going. I'm not going to give in to their cheating money style. I have a 70-in big screen TV and I will watch the games there. I often think in New York $1,600 to sit behind the Yankees dugout that was 10 years ago. you can't see the game from there because you need to sit behind home plate where you can see the movement of the baseball, what it's doing. then you can gauge how good a time at bat or not the batter had. he don't know that sitting anywhere else. I love baseball. there's nothing like him and that's on and off the field. you can't truthfully judge a player's ability drafting him out of high school or college like you can in other sports. I'm a true Vikings fan. their offense is in the tank and I think they made a mistake with the new quarterback. I choose to see the game where I can see the game and that's been taken away a long time ago. I sat on the third row behind home plate to see Johan Santana pitch for $75 and that's the most I've ever paid to see a ball game. how much does that cost now hasn't been that long ago. it's crazy and the fans just keep right on paying for it. guys are making $70 million a year. $100 million is going to come. where is the money going to come from? how many people are going to want to pay that much of their hard-earned bucks to see that guy? if that guy has to have that much money and they want to steal money like that from us, screw them I'm not going to root for them. I've taken my Minnesota twins license plate and throwing it in the trash tree because I don't want to promote money making deals like that. nothing against the players really. they take what they give them but I can't root for that kind of income. so the license plates are gone. I'd like all of baseball to know what I'm trying to say. also, in Baltimore there's one entrance you can bring in your own food.

[killercarewoliva]

1 hour ago, killercarewoliva said:

I say cut in half all major league salaries. then you can cut in half the ticket prices which are crazy. unless you're sitting in the upper deck, then more people can come to a game instead of selling season tickets that could cost as much as $100,000 for a family of four. however, if you're in New York Yankees with tickets has had $1,600 or more, how much is that for 81 games? it's unbelievable but I seem to be the only one complaining about. it's like paying $10 a pound for bananas and people do. as for extensions, I have seen a number of times a player gets a huge extension and the next year he's not as good. you know he knows he doesn't have to be but hopefully he doesn't really think like that. just doesn't work as well every year. The other team gets to understand players weaknesses at the plate and take advantage of it. but then you have to make adjustments and sometimes they are able to. maybe Lewis is a case in point on that. as for the pitching how many guys in a season have arm surgeries? throwing a ball like that your arm wasn't designed for that. those ligaments and tendons break down. super nice guy Mr. Lopez gets paid what 23 million dollars. this is why I certainly don't recommend fat salaries for a guy who's only going to play 15% of the team's games. we traded the best hitter in baseball for average for a guy that plays 15% of the team's games. go ahead and tell me because I don't understand that. Rod Carew would come just to watch Arraez hit.. I think a player needs 3 years on the major League level to get a large contract. based on the crazy money today, look at Joe Ryan. I think he's making around 6 million million and next year isn't it going to be about 13 million so we finally starts to get the big money but look what's happened to him in the second half. how is he even worth the 6 million when he can't pitch the second half of the season? I just say start taking a chance beginning in year four. The tram will have a lot better chance that way.

maybe see the latest thing I just wrote on here somewhere

[MackMan]

2 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

I can sit behind home plate for $4.50 that was 1967 in 1992. I could sit behind home plate for $12.50 the next year. it went up to $15. that's in Baltimore. I want to see the game. I don't want to have to pay $1,000 to see the game. you can't see the game when you're paying $10. not like I want to see it. I will not be cheated at a sporting event or at a music event. if the price is way too high I want to see whoever play I'm not going. I'm not going to give in to their cheating money style. I have a 70-in big screen TV and I will watch the games there. I often think in New York $1,600 to sit behind the Yankees dugout that was 10 years ago. you can't see the game from there because you need to sit behind home plate where you can see the movement of the baseball, what it's doing. then you can gauge how good a time at bat or not the batter had. he don't know that sitting anywhere else. I love baseball. there's nothing like him and that's on and off the field. you can't truthfully judge a player's ability drafting him out of high school or college like you can in other sports. I'm a true Vikings fan. their offense is in the tank and I think they made a mistake with the new quarterback. I choose to see the game where I can see the game and that's been taken away a long time ago. I sat on the third row behind home plate to see Johan Santana pitch for $75 and that's the most I've ever paid to see a ball game. how much does that cost now hasn't been that long ago. it's crazy and the fans just keep right on paying for it. guys are making $70 million a year. $100 million is going to come. where is the money going to come from? how many people are going to want to pay that much of their hard-earned bucks to see that guy? if that guy has to have that much money and they want to steal money like that from us, screw them I'm not going to root for them. I've taken my Minnesota twins license plate and throwing it in the trash tree because I don't want to promote money making deals like that. nothing against the players really. they take what they give them but I can't root for that kind of income. so the license plates are gone. I'd like all of baseball to know what I'm trying to say. also, in Baltimore there's one entrance you can bring in your own food.

Okay boomer. Time for your nap. 

[Whammy]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

I think they wait to see what’s in the new CBA before extending anyone. It has the potential to be a game-changer. 

What if the new CBA shortens team control and disincentivizes players from signing guaranteed extensions?

[killercarewoliva]

1 minute ago, MackMan said:

Okay boomer. Time for your nap. 

I've run seven marathons and I can still run but afterwards I like to have a nap. might keep in mind I have followed the Minnesota twins since 1965. almost religiously because of the type of players that the Minnesota twins like to put on the field. I've only been there one time for 4 days in 1992. I am currently 74 years old but my lady would call me 74 years young. no smoking, no drinking, no illicit drugs. he can live better and look better in your old age. okay one more thought. just for fun 1987 world series. my wife knew somebody in the power business offering me a ticket to a world series game for $100. pricing was different then and I didn't take it. thought it was too much money in hindsight....

[MackMan]

Just now, Whammy said:

What if the new CBA shortens team control and disincentivizes players from signing guaranteed extensions?

Sadly, that is part of what the players want. They want to be able to test the FA market earlier. From what I've seen is they want to be hit FA after year 5 of MLB service. I am not against it, but I think there needs to be stipulations. Maybe earning an MVP trophy before you're eligible gets removes a year. 

Example: Player MVP in MLB service year 3. Instead of requiring 6 years of MLB service before being allowed to test FA they now only have to do 5. Seems fair to me. Especially now that if they win ROY or more awards while in rookie status they earn a full service year and benefit their team by earning them extra draft picks in the following years draft.

[The Great Hambino]

25 minutes ago, MackMan said:

Probably not because we weren't around when sliced bread was made, bud. Again. If you don't want to pay $50 for a loaf of bread, you don't have to. Make it yourself. Have a friend or neighbor make one. IDK why you're constantly complaining about costs when you stated yesterday you haven't been to a game and would rather watch on TV. 

At this point I feel as if you're making the same argument on multiple different threads and posts. Cut salaries here, cut salaries there. This is these players livelyhood. They don't get to play ball for 30-40 years. They get 10-15 years and that is if their body doesn't break down doing this. 

Why anyone would think that cutting salaries would lower ticket prices and not result in the owners simply pocketing more money is utterly baffling to me.  Ticket prices are set by what the public is willing to pay.  They cost what they cost because people are willing to pay it.  The ticket market and player labor market are separate markets.

[MackMan]

2 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

I've run seven marathons and I can still run but afterwards I like to have a nap. might keep in mind I have followed the Minnesota twins since 1965. almost religiously because of the type of players that the Minnesota twins like to put on the field. I've only been there one time for 4 days in 1992. I am currently 74 years old but my lady would call me 74 years young. no smoking, no drinking, no illicit drugs. he can live better and look better in your old age. okay one more thought. just for fun 1987 world series. my wife knew somebody in the power business offering me a ticket to a world series game for $100. pricing was different then and I didn't take it. thought it was too much money in hindsight....

Brother. We get it. Your frugal. You hate spending money. THEN STOP COMPLAINING WHEN THAT IS WHAT RUNS THE WORLD. As I and many others have stated. You don't wanna spend the money to see a game, then don't. But stop complaining on here that players shouldn't be earning what their earning. Eventually there is going to be a collapse because the games are getting to expensive for the average fan to attend multiple games in a year. 

If things are too expensive to you, then just move on, but don't sit here and whine and complain that these players make way too much. NOBODY IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU. We're just tired of hearing it come from you.

[killercarewoliva]

1 minute ago, MackMan said:

Brother. We get it. Your frugal. You hate spending money. THEN STOP COMPLAINING WHEN THAT IS WHAT RUNS THE WORLD. As I and many others have stated. You don't wanna spend the money to see a game, then don't. But stop complaining on here that players shouldn't be earning what their earning. Eventually there is going to be a collapse because the games are getting to expensive for the average fan to attend multiple games in a year. 

If things are too expensive to you, then just move on, but don't sit here and whine and complain that these players make way too much. NOBODY IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU. We're just tired of hearing it come from you.

that sounded like you were disagreeing with me. I really miss going to Baltimore. it's been about 7 years and they have some of the lesser price tickets in the game. I saw the twins play every year except 1995 since 1967 until 7 years ago. I would see every game the twins played in Baltimore. The head guy with tickets knew what I wanted and every season my tickets would be waiting for me. didn't even have to call in. but thank you very much for your comment

[MackMan]

2 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Why anyone would think that cutting salaries would lower ticket prices and not result in the owners simply pocketing more money is utterly baffling to me.  Ticket prices are set by what the public is willing to pay.  They cost what they cost because people are willing to pay it.  The ticket market and player labor market are separate markets.

IDK. This dude is beyond me. If owners really wanted to make more money they would cut salaries and just put out a HS team where these kids would be happy to make $100k/year to lose and play baseball. Now the players union and league would have to step in and prevent this from happening because that would be a stain on baseball. 

I tried mentioning to this guy yesterday that the way to get fans into the park is field a competitive team. A good team will cause fans to come to the game, which in turn the ownership team can raise the prices to tickets to what is needed to get people into the game. But on the other hand if a team is horrible, the ownership needs to cut ticket prices to get people in and hope those fans are going to buy from the merchandise and food. I would rather have a full stadium at 1/2 price tickets than a 1/2 full stadium from full priced tickets. The money is the same, but if people only pay $20/ticket versus $50-60/ticket, they may be more apt to spend on food and merchandise. 

[Coach]

Miranda was beaned out of baseball, he did not flame out. Sad.

[NYCTK]

45 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

thank you for your replying. what I'm trying to say as for me nobody is worth $100,000 a game and we watch somebody making that kind of money is crazy. at age 17 I sat behind home plate for $4.50. That's probably equal to just under $100 today but tickets can be be over $1,000 or more today

I can go sit behind home plate in one of the most expensive metro areas in the world for about $400 ($200 with bad weather) with white glove service and all you can eat and drink inclusive. It's a different product completely. 

If you actually compare apples to apples, tickets haven't grown much faster than inflation. Which you know because I pointed this out last time you starting complaining about ticket prices and how overpaid the players are.