Mailbag: Looming Strike, Free Agent Issues, Pitch Clock

It seems like I'm going off-topic here by inserting a comment about the last of Cody's mailbag responses!

Regarding Buxton having a breakout season and becoming the leadoff hitter by September, I think the first prediction is realistic (breakout season!) but not the second. Is there anything in Buxton's track record that suggests he would add value as a modern (OBP) leadoff man?

FYI, in his last 6 spring training at-bats he has put the first pitch in play 5 times. That sounds like a guy who is working on being aggressive with pitches in the zone rather than seeing a lot of pitches.

I don't think most people agree that they'd rather watch softball. Otherwise, those people would be making more money....

 

"management's money" is an interesting phrase. Why is it their money, and not the money of the actual entertainers? 

Because the entertainers have entered into a contract with an employer wherein they are compensated for their time, but have no other investment obligation.  Therefore, since the entertainers have not entered any of their money into the operation, it remains the money of the operator.  If the players wanted to own their own teams, or instead of signing contracts for set dollar amounts, opted for a percent of revenue/profit, then it could be considered their money.

Source?

Good catch...let me try it again with more specifics...

...according to MLB Gameday, Byron Buxton put the first pitch in play in 5 of his last 6 at-bats, including all three of his at-bats while going 0-3 in the February 27 game against Philadelphia and his first two at-bats while going 3-3 in the February 25 game against Baltimore....

A small sample size and subject to recency-bias, I'll admit, but it doesn't do anything to persuade me that he is working on pitch-selection during spring training. And if he doesn't work on grinding out at-bats when the games don't count, what is the likelihood that he will during the regular season? Habits are hard to break.

Maybe someone will fill in the facts, but I think it was stated (last year?) that Gameday feeds are not with full detail in many cases, so a lot of plate appearances will look like they were of the 1-pitch variety.

If that is the case I am happy to provide my apologies and thanks for the correction in advance!

I will also, however, re-state my original question: Is there anything in Buxton's track record to suggest he would add value as a modern (OBP) lead-off man? I've seen lots of analysis on this site and elsewhere that suggests the 2019 Twins 25-man roster will likely lack players with good on base skills, so it seems to me they would want to maximize this ability at the top of the order, at least.

Why are pampered billionaires extorting me for my taxes? For all this capitalism we sure seem to be using socialism when it comes to building the infrastructure these billionaires use to make enormous profits.

 

Everyone comparing MLB to Microsoft or some other company is trying to compare apples to whales and call it legit. That's....ridiculous.

 

There are no good guys here and most of you lambasting the players are really, really out of touch with the dynamics of this. I'm not putting the players on some pedestal either, just making the most of bad choices. And choosing, personally, not to give either of them a dime of my money again.

I’m not an owner of Twins Daily, but since the stylized “Twins” with the line under it is a registered trademark, I would think a website using that title likely has to pay to do so. If so, by patronizing this site, you would indirectly be giving them money.

Next CBA will be interesting to see if the players can force a minimum spend on major league owners (say $100 million).  Otherwise you will see wage deflation for anyone not better than the middle class of ballplayers.  Stars will get paid, the rest will become replaceable parts based on the economic sight of the owner of any given franchise.  Why pay a decent player between $5 - $10 million a year, when you can pay a player $600,000 to do 90% of what the other player was doing, if you know you are not going to be competitive in the current year. This would also come coupled with a hard salary cap.

Only other thing that might happen is that teams are given a fixed number of years of control based on when a player signs.  At the current time this is 13 years, 4 years before having to be put on a 40 man, 3 option years, and 6 years before FA.  For most players that will hit FA (being a productive MLB ballplayer) it is probably closer to 11 with the difference being put on the 40 man until you are in the major leagues.  To make changes you will have to cut this to about 9, so the bulk of the players can hit FA while still in their prime.  This would  have a massive affect not only on the major league, but also the minor leagues as why spend money on longer shots, since their is little payback even now only 2 - 3 max make the majors from each teams 30 draft picks. 

I don't think most people agree that they'd rather watch softball. Otherwise, those people would be making more money....

 

"management's money" is an interesting phrase. Why is it their money, and not the money of the actual entertainers? 

The "entertainers" don't own the team.  They don't take any risks, including the risk the entertainer sucks this year or gets hurt or fails in some way, which may cost the owner money.

This is the real world. We don't give out participation trophies. 

Why are pampered billionaires extorting me for my taxes?  For all this capitalism we sure seem to be using socialism when it comes to building the infrastructure these billionaires use to make enormous profits.

 

Everyone comparing MLB to Microsoft or some other company is trying to compare apples to whales and call it legit.  That's....ridiculous.

 

There are no good guys here and most of you lambasting the players are really, really out of touch with the dynamics of this.  I'm not putting the players on some pedestal either, just making the most of bad choices.  And choosing, personally, not to give either of them a dime of my money again.  

I assume that by "Pampered billionaires" you are talking about public funding of a stadium. But that is not socialism,in fact, its sort of the opposite. Socialism takes from the wealthy to "spread the wealth" around.  It suppresses the risk--reward aspects of capitalism. It rewards those who do nothing at the expense of those who work and build and create wealth. Public funding of stadiums is different. 

And I don't think that those who question why ballplayers should get a share of revenue are out of touch with the dynamics of this. In fact, they are bringing it out of the lofty clouds and hero worship by questioning why pampered athletes, many of whom make millions for playing a game, should get more more more.

For me, I am saying this is absurd and out of control when a single mom can't afford to take her 10 year old son to a ballgame without coughing up $100

The idea of Buck leading off is not so surprising. He is the fastest guy on the team and the best base stealer. Those guys should hit first. Except that, he needs to raise his OBP.  You can't steal if you ain't on base.

But its more than that. The guys at the top of the order usually get an extra at bat as the order rolls around during a game. You want your best hitters getting more at bats. So there is a trade off. I think Mollie always wanted to hit Buck first, but the second consideration outweighed the first for him. 

The idea of Buck leading off is not so surprising. He is the fastest guy on the team and the best base stealer. Those guys should hit first. Except that, he needs to raise his OBP. You can't steal if you ain't on base.

 

But its more than that. The guys at the top of the order usually get an extra at bat as the order rolls around during a game. You want your best hitters getting more at bats. So there is a trade off. I think Mollie always wanted to hit Buck first, but the second consideration outweighed the first for him.

I think everyone “wants” Buxton to hit leadoff. I, and many others, are skeptical that he can succeed there NOW and moreover it isn’t what is best for the team now.

Given that no team loses money or value, what risk are owners taking? These aren't like other businesses. Also, the players are talking plenty of risk. Few minor league players make the majors. They are risking not working for real money for years. Labor takes risks every day, just a different kind. And, given they aren't billionaires, many of whom inherited the teams and risk nothing, the risk is much higher for a player, than a billionaire. They are risking having any money, as opposed to how many more millions they can make.

Sorry, no sale.  Players don't take the kinds of risks owners do ... not even close. Owners have payroll, minor league operations, scouting departments, major league operations, advertising, promotional expenses, and tons of other expenses and costs.  Players have their gear and they get paid even if they don't produce.  And whether minor leaguers make the show or not is a red herring. That is no "risk" but an opportunity. Your market value is set by your skills and abilities, same as everywhere . There is no guarantee anyone will want to hire you in any sport, any business, any industry.  If you aren't good enough, find something else to do. You don't have a right to a big money contract if you can't play the game. Like I said, in the real world we don't give participation trophies. 

The Apostle Paul said "A worker is worth his wage." He didn't say "A worker should own part of the business." That is a commie concept

Who told you owners don't lose money? Teams may appreciate in value, over time, but a down season can cost a team millions. 

Who is setting the ticket prices?   Owners keep charging all of us more in our taxes and at the gate.  And every year they keep more and more of it for themselves. 

 

Never, in anything I've read about capitalism, was the idea to extort the public through the government, to build private business and then horde the profits.   That ain't capitalism.

 

The players get a slice of the pie that the owners keep the bulk of.  And the owners keep growing the pie at our expense.  You're getting suckered.

I don't mind owners making money. Whether they are Gates, or Buffett or Pohlad. As for taxes, the elected representatives decided to chip in. Blame them, if you have to blame anyone.  The Twins bring in a lot of business to the Cities. Hotels, restaurants, parking, merchandise. Don't be so damn grumpy.

Who is setting the ticket prices?   Owners keep charging all of us more in our taxes and at the gate.  And every year they keep more and more of it for themselves. 

 

Never, in anything I've read about capitalism, was the idea to extort the public through the government, to build private business and then horde the profits.   That ain't capitalism.

 

The players get a slice of the pie that the owners keep the bulk of.  And the owners keep growing the pie at our expense.  You're getting suckered.

Owners don't charge taxes, cities and states do. Owners set prices to pass expenses off to the consumer.  Higher payroll means higher ticket prices. Yeah, THAT IS capitalism. I don't mind owners showing a profit. It has always been that way. 

I don't mind owners making money. Whether they are Gates, or Buffett or Pohlad. As for taxes, the elected representatives decided to chip in. Blame them, if you have to blame anyone. The Twins bring in a lot of business to the Cities. Hotels, restaurants, parking, merchandise. Don't be so damn grumpy.

Carl Pohlad was beloved owner and business man who built a banking empire, won 2 world series, kept Puckett by making him the highest paid player in the sport. What exactly has Jim Pohlad done or accomplished to deserve to be one of 32 MLB owners in the world?

Free market is driven by 2 simple principles: supply and demand.

MLB isn't a free market because demand is somewhat fixed on the production side: 32 teams x 25 roster spots. Also, Lux tax pulling down large contracts and cost control over 3 with team control for 6.

And supply is fixed on the consumption side: 30 teams in the league.

Demand has sky rocketed because of the availability of content (tv and internet). Everyone is making money. Still 30 teams.

Baseball is (pro sports are) actually a good example of why the free market has limitations. The market suggests that more teams should enter the market until profit is sufficiently depleted. But at that point, the product becomes watered down as talent is stretched over more teams. Eventually you'll have a cheaper less profitable product that people will stop watching. The owners even recognize the need for some level of competitive balance to ensure the viability of the resource for all interested parties. So they agree to share profits to keep the whole league strong. A redistribution of wealth for the common benefit of all.

But it's only socialism if the players want a share, right?

The owners don't have to share their books during negotiations. That should be your first ref flag.

Another option for salaries would be to do something like the NBA.  Take a portion of the TV money and assign it to a pool for veteran players.  If a player has x years of experience, the first x million dollars come out of the pool.  If you're the Twins, you could end up paying a veteran the same as you would a rookie.  

I think that's how it works for the NBA....but I've been wrong before.