bean5302

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this trade. Reports on Petty were glowing, but reports on prospects like Petty almost always are and we have no real competitive play to judge. If the reports on Petty aren't overblown, he could be pitching as an ace at the MLB level in two years. More akin to what Gray was... rather than what he is today as Gray has trended downwards (and lost significant velocity). Petty was the first pitcher drafted by Falvey where I was becoming legitimately excited about him. My initial perception was raw hard "thrower" so I wasn't on board the Petty is an ace train. However, the reports made Petty seem like a natural pitcher who had just never needed to use his other pitches because of the elite velocity. At this point, Gray is probably a 2.0-3.0 WAR mid/back rotation starter so trading Petty could be a colossal mistake. A good front office will never, ever give up a potentially elite prospect for middle of the road, short term MLB talent. What I want from this franchise is direction. The Garver trade does not make the Twins better this year in my opinion, and it doesn't really make them better in the future as Garver was controlled just as long as Kiner-Falefa. I'm not bullish on Jeffers at all and I'm awfully skeptical the difference between Kiner-Falefa and Palacios (who has earned a shot in my opinion) at shortstop is more than 1 WAR. The difference between Garver and Jeffers at catcher is probably 3 WAR and I don't view Gray as anything but an average starter the Twins could have signed. The Twins might be filling holes for this season, but they're not a competitive team without massive ifs being resolved.

What can I say, flailing about making moves which don't seem to form a cohesive plan doesn't get them a lot of credit?

I have no idea why there is a perception Jeffers is a better defensive catcher than Garver. Since the start of 2020 at the MLB Level. Jeffers 832 Garver 620.2 innings. The better of the two = Steal Attempts = Garver 44 vs. Jeffers 75 Caught Stealing% = Garver 23% vs. Jeffers 20% Catcher Framing = This one is a bit of a toss up. Garver ahead in some years, Jeffers ahead in others same with different sources. Passed Balls = Jeffers 7 (every 119 innings) vs. Garver 7 (1 every 88.2 innings) Wild Pitches = Garver 22 (1 every 28.1 innings) vs. Jeffers 32 (1 every 26 innings) PB + WP = Garver 29 (1 every 21.2 innings) vs. Jeffers 39 (1 every 21.1 Innings) Errors = Garver 1 error (.998 fielding percentage) vs. Jeffers 4 errors (.995 fielding percentage) Garver is arguably better at controlling the run game, both in opponents' willingness to try to steal, and the likelihood they get caught stealing. Garver is arguably equal with catcher framing. Garver is arguably the more reliable receiver. Garver is arguably less likely to commit an error. Exactly why is it Jeffers is considered the better defensive catcher? Garver is an above average defensive catcher in most metrics when I've compared him to his peers.

Prior to the season, Derek Falvey was on record as talking to Austin Martin about the potential for Martin to play shortstop at the MLB level with the Twins this year. The link I found wasn't as direct about it as another one I read, but these things are tough to find! https://sports.yahoo.com/neal-royce-isn-t-ready-224900472.html That said... Austin Martin has almost universally been scouted as an unlikely shortstop. Range and arm strength are both considered questionable for a starting shortstop at the MLB level, but a lot of that can be overcome with the shift. See one Andrelton Simmons. Simmons had the reputation of an elite shortstop; however, he's never had acceptable range for a shortstop. He did possess a cannon arm which made up for some of it, but as his speed has dropped down to below that of a typical bat-first corner outfielder, Simmons remained adequate at the shortstop position. Why? The shift. Now that the shift has been eliminated by new rules as a part of the 2022 CBA, has did it change the way the Twins view their options at shortstop this year and put them into a position where they were desperate to acquire a cheap, controllable shortstop in the hopes of bridging to Royce Lewis, if Lewis is able to make the huge leaps forward? Did the Twins pull the plug on Martin as a potential shortstop? I still hate the Garver deal. I think it's amongst the worst trades I can recall, but was it borne from a knee-jerk reaction at the sudden landscape change as to the importance of shortstop physical skills and athleticism?

If you're trading multiple players, you generally have to pay a premium. Probably 25%-ish. The Rangers should have been at 13-14 MTV with 2 players to get Garver. Instead, the MTV was 10% under Garver. It really doesn't seem like a trade the Twins did will with at all in my opinion.

2.5 fWAR is the bare minimum for a starting position player who is pulling their weight. Any less than that, and somebody else on the team needs to make up for it. I guess I'm not sure why people are excited about him. He's not a good starter. Honestly, this just goes to Falvey and Levine continuing to have little to no respect for Garver as they have demonstrated throughout his career. Here's hoping Garver remains healthy and puts up that 5-6 WAR season within his potential.

Btw, Buxton has literally played the following percentage of MLB games in his seasons at MLB (not including his rookie year of 2015): 57% 86% 17% 54% 65% (in only a 60 game season) 38% That's 6 years and just one season over 65% in his career (that was 5 years ago). I really don't understand the "wow" as people refuse to come to grips with Back = chronic back spasms (these are not going away) Migraines = chronic (these are not going away) Wrist = multiple sprains Hand/fingers = multiple broken bones and surgical intervention in 2014, serious sprains as well Buxton is also susceptible to strained hips and hamstrings Injuries add up. Every time surgery or serious sprains and strains happen, they weaken structure, build scar tissue and increase the likelihood of re-injury. I'd be shocked if Buxton put together a season of 100 games.

One of the worst trades I've ever seen. Isiah Kiner Falefa wasn't a starting shortstop in the Rangers' eyes. They doubled down on that by signing two shortstops to replace him. You're talking about trading Mitch Garver for a AAAA shortstop or a utility player and little better than a PTBNL pitching prospect. This makes Ramos for Capps look like an A+ trade MLB has slotted Henriquez in as the 20th prospect in the Twins' system. Like WTF?

I question your lack of source, lack of citation and lack of statistics.

If there is a 120 game season, I don't expect Buxton to play more than 60 games and I do believe last year was largely a fluke. I'll comfortably take the under on his 4.2 fWAR. I do think Sano will post an OPS north of .778. It's a contract year for him and that OPS sholdn't be too far above league average for an all bat guy like Sano to get. Larnach I'd easily take the under OPS .750. I don't think he has what it takes as there's almost nothing other than a fastball he was able to hit last year, but I'd take the over .750 OPS for Kirilloff in a heartbeat. He's the real deal in my opinion. I expect him to have an excellent bat. Joe Ryan and Bailey Ober I'd expect both of them to be right around 4.00 ERA. I guess slightly over. If we're sticking with .750 OPS, I'd take the over .750 OPS on Brent Rooker. His expected outcomes and advanced metrics showed him just getting totally fleeced by luck last year. I'd take the over 3.5 fWAR for Josh Donaldson if the season is 120+ games.

Same thing. Find a credible source. Credible statistical analysis or shut up.

Put up your own data or shut up.

It was rhetorical. @Ted Schwerzler contributes an enormous amount to the site and threatening him with the ban hammer would have been absurd. Sorry, Ted. It wasn't fair of me to use your article in this fashion.

I still remember when the league tried to enforce the pace of play rules limiting batters from stepping out of the box and guys like Gardy lost their minds when strikes were called https://www.twincities.com/2008/06/15/gardenhire-irate-over-speed-up-called-strike-in-loss-to-brewers/

No numbers have been released for 2021 yet. Profits for MLB teams, on average, have followed an odd trend. Slowly increasing before tumbling at during the 2007-2011 CBA, quickly diminishing in the early years of the 2012-2016 CBA, and then skyrocketing after the last CBA started in 2017. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193478/mlb-franchises-average-operating-income-since-2005/ If I were to hazard a guess on 2021 using Forbes' game day revenue projections based on 2019 of $165MM per team and the 33% reduction in average attendance from 28,000 to 19,000, game day revenues would have dropped about $55MM per team. Payrolls also decreased, between 2019 and 2021, but by $6MM. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2020/04/17/the-mlb-stadium-revenue-at-risk-for-every-team-if-games-are-played-without-fans/?sh=38e35f287a35 The net impact would be an average profit of about $1MM per team ($55MM - $6MM = $49MM decrease subtracted from 2019's average profit of $50MM). So half the league probably lost money again in 2021, but certainly not like 2020. It's really tough to say since a beer was like $9,821,187 or something at Target Field last year. Maybe a brutal price hike in concessions increased revenue... or maybe it was too high and decreased revenue? Not sure on that so all I can do is throw a hypothosis out there based on normal season league revenues and sources. 2005 = $13MM (3 CBAs ago) 2006 = $17MM 2007 = $17MM (2 CBAs ago) 2008 = $17MM 2009 = $17MM 2010 = $16MM 2011 = $14MM 2012 = $13MM (2 CBAs ago) 2013 = $10MM 2014 = $20MM 2015 = $23MM 2016 = $34MM 2017 = $29MM (1 CBA ago) 2018 = $40MM 2019 = $50MM 2020 = ($60MM) 2021 = $1MM *ball park estimate based on numbers explained above

I have professional, published, nationally respected data sites. How about you? Do tell!

Here is an actual statistical analysis of attendance including month to month variances. https://eda.seas.gwu.edu/showcase/2020-Spring/mlb_attendance.html The Twins are scheduled to play 27 games prior to May 1, which means rebates would already be hitting before the end of April. In an normal year (25k average attendance, $33 per ticket, 27 games) which I expect 2022 would be for attendance, the Twins would lose approximately $23MM in ticket revenues alone. Another $5MM in concessions revenue. That's in addition to the start of rebates for TV broadcasts.

Player salaries should go to construction workers because without a stadium to play in, players wouldn't have a field to play on.

Is this top 10 revenue is this top 10 payroll or is this top 10 in market size? Smaller revenue/market/spending teams who are performing well typically have a burst in revenue and often take advantage of that by overspending to try and keep playoff runs alive. It's a bit of a catch-22.

This has to be the most irresponsible, inflammatory and inaccurate take by a fan I've seen in the entire negotiation process. Canceling 1/6th of the baseball season doesn't hurt teams but helps them because they don't have to pay the players? @Brock Beauchamp brought out the threat of the ban hammer for an inaccurate statement made by a poster the other day. I assume so long as the take is critical of ownership the accuracy of the article or post isn't relevant, even if it damages the credibility of the staff at this site... The average team in baseball lost $60MM in 2020. The losses ranged from $20MM for Cleveland Guardians to $190MM for the New York Yankees. Payments on debts still need to be made. Facilities still require maintenance. Training staff, coaches and front office employees who are working still need to be paid. All of that without virtually any revenue.

The past 3 CBA's? You mean where players were steadily and consistently earning 50% of league revenue? The players were not at any disadvantage and the head of the MLBPA, Tony Clark, is in quotes about the economic position (split) being fine as late as 2018. The primary gripe was about service time manipulation until just recently. The inaccurate myth that players were earning far less than the 50% split just never goes away on this site, but now we have to play one-uppy on the misinformation and go back 3 CBA's? https://www.statista.com/statistics/193478/mlb-franchises-average-operating-income-since-2005/ Owners were the ones watching their profits erode during the 2007-2011 and start of the 2012-2017 CBAs. The cable TV contracts which became so popular dramatically floated profits but it's a bit like drinking poison as baseball alienates a lot of their fan base by requiring expensive cable contracts to access the games long term. Taking in the incredible losses from 2020, owners profits are averaging $20MM a year since 2014, despite large increases in revenues. That means owner profits are down as a percentage for the better part of the last decade. ...anyway, back to the topic, while a salary floor would do far more to help the vast majority of players, MLB's interest in the salary floor has next to nothing to do with free agent compensation. MLB wants the salary floor to placate owners who are being forced to provide funding for teams who are abusing the revenue sharing system. i.e. the Yankees basically pay for the Rays' players. You could see how that would make Steinbrenner a little hot. The other aspect of the salary floor is to increase competition and discourage tanking (something the MLBPA says they care about). The MLBPA's negotiating team is totally disingenuous... or collossally incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse. Ownership has made proposals or agreed to major concessions which align with everything MLBPA says they want, but there's no agreement. At this point, it's dubious to believe a vote of MLB owners would result in a final vote of acceptance for what's been negotiated.

Just $5MM, eh? Is that all? Except the MLBPA is trying to remove $200-300MM from revenue sharing which, combined with the additional $5MM you're guessing at here would put a bunch of teams in MLB underwater in terms of operating income. The MLBPA has requested an additional $80MM for just the pre-arbitration players (roughly $3MM per team). MLB has already proposed an increased expenditure of $150MM for arbitration eligible players (roughly $5MM per team), though I'm not sure where that is at this point. Then there is the minimum salary increase proposed by the MLBPA which will cost each team approximately $3MM per team. That's $11MM per team in payroll right there. Seeing a reduction of $10MM in revenue sharing for the smaller market teams coupled with $11MM in additional expenditures sees an overall operating income swing of $21MM. That's catastrophic... You're talking pure expenses with zero revenue to offset it, and topping it off with a shortened season. If you don't understand how ludicrous the MLBPA's asks are, you're not doing the math or looking at the big picture.

The owners have done the following: Agreed to increase the luxury tax cap proposal by 30% Agreed to eliminate draft penalties for exceeding the cap. Agreed to eliminate escalating cap penalties. Agreed to eliminate qualifying offer draft pick penalties Agreed to pre-arbitration bonus pool. Agreed to increase the minimum salary. Agreed to a draft lottery system. Agreed to a age 29.5 maximum for free agency. Agreed to grant draft pick compensation bonuses for not manipulating service time Agreed to a $100MM payroll floor. I continue to be bewildered by the hate directed at MLB owners.

So you're saying every team which is terrible is destined to be successful. If that's the case, we don't have anything to worry about from a competitive balance standpoint. Everything will just work itself out naturally. Good teams will become terrible and terrible teams will become good. Let's look at your very SSS example of 2001-2006. There are 8 teams of the 30 which make the playoffs back then. I'm not sure what you mean about small market? Bottom 10? Bottom 15? We'll say bottom 10. Statistically, if everything was linear, you'd expect 16 of the 48 playoff teams to be small market, mid market and large market each. Unfortunately, just looking at 2001 off the bat, you missed Cleveland and Arizona already as small market teams. 2001 = 3/8 small revenue (Cleveland, Oakland, Arizona) 2002 = 3/8 small revenue (Minnesota, Oakland, Arizona) 2003 = 3/8 small revenue (Minnesota, Oakland, Florida) 2004 = 1/8 small revenue (Minnesota) 2005 = 1/8 small revenue (San Diego) 2006 = 3/8 small revenue (Minnesota, Oakland, San Diego) Total? 14 small revenue teams... pretty much exactly what a statistical parity would look like. Of course, I don't think making the playoffs is as important as making/winning the World Series and I think there would be some bigger discrepancies there, but the argument has never been all teams need exactly the same revenue to compete. Just that some teams abuse the revenue sharing system and don't try to win and some teams have a relevant advantage because they can dramatically outspend other teams.

As somebody who's spent many a night until after 10pm at Target Field, I'm all for the pitch clock. Also, one only has to look at existing MLB rules to see the pitch clock is conservative. MLB rule 8.04 states a pitcher with possession of the ball and a batter in the box, the pitcher must deliver a pitch within 12 seconds or there will be a called "ball" for delaying the game when no runner are on base and the pitcher has the ball. A pitcher can be ejected from the game for multiple violations. I think of the pitch clock as a tool to enforce the rule more than a revolutionary concept. MLB has attempted to curb batters stepping out of the box and encourage pitchers to get the pitch to the plate faster in recent years, but just like the "sticky stuff", pitchers have refused to follow the rules and that necessitates a more stringent enforcement. The difference between a 15 second time and a 22 second time is about 0.15mph from the linked source below. The linked source explains 0.2mph = 10 runs or 1 win/WAR per season across an entire pitching staff, in theory. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pitchers-are-slowing-down-to-speed-up/ Honestly, rules to speed up game play, I believe, will improve fan engagement.