Dantes929

To elaborate, I have little sympathy for the front office. The model was designed for X amount to be distributed out in salaries and as you pointed out the owners are not doing it but it is kind of hard to blame them. No one of them should be paying Cobb 80 mil for 5 years if they think it is a bad deal just for the sake of spending more money to make the owners overall look like they are spending a lot of money. Most players are those in the first 6 years who are comparatively underpaid for their production or average players that get 1 or two year contracts based on their value. The rallying cry for the new CBA though seems to be for the benefit of the elite few that are making really big money but think they are not getting enough years of really big money. Hosmer shouldn't be arguing that his ability to make 160 mil over the next 8 years was in peril. He should be arguing that he should have made 100 mil for what he has already done in his career. Common sense says their next contract should do away with decline phase contracts and simply pay more for prime production.

Well..I think they both got greedy. Honestly, I know the owners are ridiculously rich and greedy but they are just making good decisions with the system as is. Most are either offended by those producing in the early years but not getting paid for it or getting paid for it in the later years without producing. I am more offended by the latter because if you have made it to the 9th or 10th year in the majors you have already made an obscene amount of money. A reasonable answer would be to curb the length of contracts which players are extorting (ok I know that is not the right word) out of the owners and pay more for the shorter terms while also paying a lot more for the first 6 years either as a merit base or as a minimum pay. My sympathies lie less with the veteran who has already made 20 mil and now is upset that he is only offered 50 mil for 3 years rather than 100 mil for 6 years and more with the guy that is an all star after two years and is being paid like every other guy after two years. Of course sympathy is the wrong word also. I don't feel sorry for the owners or the players. I would trade places with either in a heartbeat.

I don't think I would care to see a model where 1 of anything gets another 3.5 mil but the scene you just described is what I imagine goes on in Washington every day.

Not just for fun. What he did in the first 5 years is very relevant to the conversation. I remember analyzing his first 5 years once before and thought it came out closer to 100 mil value. Either way, he would have received a lot more earlier and a fair amount less in some of the later years in a merit based system. Kind of scary to think how much Houston would have been on the hook for in your WAR system. Maybe every team would pay 52% of their revenue into one big pot, everyone gets paid minimum and rest is divided by total WAR and paid accordingly. Adjustments could be made for higher cost areas and it would require a lot of faith in WAR. BTW, I never bitched about Mauer's contract though I didn't think it was a good baseball decision. I always thought at least 30 mil of it should have been written off to marketing rather than salaries.

You are both reflecting the thoughts I had while writing my post. I was just commenting on the dynamic where free agents have demanded prime pay for past prime years, and lots of them. I am not suggesting too much of the gross is going to the players, but yes, the front end should be adjusted because the back end should be adjusted. If there was a way to pay for production, I would be in favor of it. If a golfer has a bad year he gets paid well but if he has a good year he gets paid really well. Doesn't matter if he is a first year guy or a 20 year guy. I don't have the answers but I would like the same pot split differently based on performance. If a baseball player has an MVP year he should be paid like an MVP regardless of how many years he has played. Vanimal, currently the guys in the first 6 years (and before that) bear the risk of injury. I think they should be paid better and that the guys after 6 years should bear the risk as well. Of course all this would involve a league minimum and for guys to be paid for their production after the season has ended. Like I said, I am just brainstorming here. I don't have any great answers. I just don't particularly like the system in place now. Too many instances of huge pay for little performance and too many instances of relatively low pay for good performance. Just cherry picking but I think Mauer would have been OK with making true market value throughout his career. Probably would have ended up with a similar mountain of money.

I think the players have had it too good for too long. Teams are starting to realize that deals like Cabrerra, Mauer and Puljols just aren't paying off. Paying a premium for the great years players already had as well as being forced to pay a premium for years when the player is likely in the twilight just doesn't make sense. No way in the world I pay Hosmer 144 mil for 8 years. Maybe 4 years for 72mil and that is how the players need to adjust. The teams just take on too much risk. Shorter contracts with more incentives and options makes more sense. Lynn and Cobb for three years at 48 mil or even better two years for 37 makes more sense for some teams than 5 years for 70 mil. Players still get big pay days and if they perform will be in line for more big pay days but the risk is mitigated if they tank after one or two.

I've heard this before and yet Butera and Punto have been to the WS. If you look at most good team's rosters almost all of them have guys like Grossman that get a few hundred at bats. In fact the Twins were a pretty good team last year mainly because of their offense and Robbie got 456 at bats. He has some value but I would prefer that value get about half the at bats as last year. I also wish it came with better defense. Backups aren't really supposed to make you perky. I never thought "Sweet! Al Newman is starting today" Granite actually does move the needle a little bit that way which is why I prefer him.

What you say is probably what the Twins are thinking but i will never understand it. Surgery was 4 years ago and there just isn't any evidence that says a guy should only increase his workload 20% each year. How many guys have we babied that still developed arm problems. How many guys in the 70's and 80's pitched 200 innings without being babied? If there was science behind it I would get it but I haven't seen any science backing up treating pitchers this way.

I miss Tom's recaps. What is the best site for following ST games?

In Chip Hilton's Home Run Feud Chips teammates at University talk about how pitchers are always ahead of hitters early on but doesn't seem to take to long to for the batters to catch up. Did that reference resonate with anyone?

Of course having an ace is a positive. Having one or two increases your odds of making the playoffs to start with so there is already a built in likelihood of being successful in the playoffs with an ace that has nothing to do with the actual performance of an ace in the playoffs. In other words to be successful in the playoffs you have to make the playoffs and your chances of making the playoffs are better when you have an ace. Teams without aces are not very well represented and no one is saying an ace vs a non ace does not have an advantage. Saying you need an ace and then citing KC as an example to support the case when Cueto pitched like a #5 in the regular season for KC and in the playoffs is really a stretch. On the flip side, Santana might not fit your definition of an ace but he and others are certainly capable of pitching like an ace. The fact that he was not successful in the play in game does not mean he was incapable of being successful. He just had a very bad game. Certainly worse pitchers have won many playoff games. Flip side is true also. Maybe Gibson would have more success in the WS than Darvish had, or Kershaw. It would be hard not to. Aces wouldn't be aces if they didn't give you a better chance of winning but I think I remember one of the bad Twins teams beating 3 Cy Young winners in a row in one stretch. SSS says a good pitcher can beat a very good pitcher on any given day. Get to the playoffs and I would be fine with the chances of magic happening once there.

If they all have good OBP I would be just fine if they were all in the 20-28 range. I am going out on a limb and say Buxton leads the team.

Santana should only be out for around 1/6 of the season. There was some analysis about his use of the slider that explained his success last year but even with regression he should be pretty good. Odorizzi should give us what Gibson gave us the last half of last year. I expect at least the same from Gibson as last year but last year he was our 3rd best and if our third best becomes our 4th best that is a good thing. I don't know how Meija had a 4.5 ERA last year which is the same as Hughes career ERA. I don't know how he doesn't end up in the top 5 on the depth charts. Either way the improvement should be in the middle to back end and there should be improvement.

Worked well for the 27 Yankees though. Just kidding maybe they had great pitching as well. Saying it didn't work well for Toronto and Texas is like saying having great pitching didn't work well for the Dodgers this year or like saying Santana can't win a playoff game because look, he pitched in a playoff game and didn't win. Give me Toronto's team that year every year into the the playoffs and I would be happy to take my chances. They won the wild card and the Division Series but lost 4 games to 1 in the AL championship. In those losses they averaged less than a run a game and gave up exactly 2 runs a game. They had no ace but giving up just 2 runs a game will win most of your playoff games. They had a great offense but scoring less than a run a game will not win any games for you.

I wonder what Mikelink45 thinks is the biggest question mark. I agree that Sano is the biggest question mark. I have no worries about the rest of the team. We had a question mark at DH and now we don't.

I would probably knock each of those 3 down one year. Overpay for a 3 year and rationalize that part of it is paying him for the great value he has given us. No need to try to extend him this year at any rate. Much like Mauer back in the day, his value isn't going to get much higher and could possibly be quite a bit worse by the end of the year.

Exactly this. He has been great and has been a great value. Accept and hope that he will be a great value this year as well. I like teams to plan for the future but there is something to having a great value in the present. When Santana hit his last year I couldn't believe how much people wanted him traded because he would be gone the next year. We had an undeniable ace for 11 mil for one more year. That is a pretty awesome value in and of itself. It was particularly annoying because that was the game 163 with Chicago season and I think it is safe to assume he would have made more than a 1 game difference and who knows how the playoffs might have gone. Enjoy Dozier for what he can give us this year.

I have played sports my entire life. When guys take shots to the head or sprain ankles or blow out knees or worse, you do what you can but it is mostly a helpless feeling until actual medical people arrive. When I I've been hurt myself, comfort from friends is maybe somewhat appreciated but no where near as much as when someone gets there that actually knows what they are doing. In the pros, that guy is right there. its not unfeeling on my part. I said in the original post the way things have always been is not the way things always have to be. Can Hughes do more for the catcher than the umpire can? If you have a broken bone or a concussion do you really need moral support or do you need a doctor? You are actually making a bigger deal abut what comfort a pitcher can give which is very little and very unnecessary. Heck, most of the time the catcher gets his bell rung the pitcher doesn't go all the way to the plate, anyway. If a player steals a base and jams a thumb or sprains an ankle or in Morneau's case gets a concussion do all his teammates come rushing out or is it the trainer? It sounds like Hughes didn't go see how Garver was and this was a ST game. Does that mean Hughes was uncaring? He just wanted clarification and I am saying the rule as is is very reasonable.

Its ok to dream during the offseason but the history of the Twins in addition to what looked like about a dozen players on the market that were worth getting makes doing nothing or just picking up Rodney about par for the course. Lets say there were 20 players worth getting and we rarely trade for good stuff that is still 20 players to go around for 30 teams and we got 3 good guys with Pineda a wild card. I guess what I didn't like was Rodney basically for Burdi. How many teams had a better off season than we did?

Why and in what role? I admit I have pretty much written him off but if he can get back to 2014 form I would be happy to be wrong. The suggestion of him being useful if he gets back to 75% of what he was he can be useful I disagree with. He needs to get back to pretty much his best. I have thought maybe the pen was the place for him the last two years but it was more to give him mop up duty and because our worst pen guys were probably no better. Now if he is not back to his best I am hoping with our additions we have better options in the pen and the rotation. If he earns his way back to either role I am all for it but in the past guys have been given spots because they have large contracts or because of success they have had pre injury. Not a big fan of that.

For Pete's sake. Are you saying the pitcher among all who are concerned is the one who should be checking on the injured party rather than someone that is trained to do so and can actually do something about it? Just because he is a couple feet closer? That would be the word you referred to. My point was everyone is likely concerned. If I was a family member I would hope that someone with medical knowledge would check if he is ok. As a family member I would take less comfort in the pitcher going and putting his hand on the catcher's shoulder and asking if he is ok or if he needs the trainer than if the trainer just simply went out there directly. In the past when the umpire is shaken up what happens? The pitcher and catcher meet on the mound and 7 other players are standing around doing nothing. What is wrong with the pitcher and catcher standing around as well? If there is a true value to meeting on the mound to discuss things mid inning then that is one more time one team has to do this over the other. If there is no value to it then what is the complaint to standing around. Loneliness? Boredom?

The way its always been is not the way it always has to be. A catcher gets his bell rung and it is natural for the pitcher to be concerned much like it is natural for the manager, the trainer, all the infielders , the catcher's wife and kids and his close friends to be concerned and yet not all of those go and see if the catcher is all right. The correct answer to Hughes question would be "There is no reason for you to come and check how he is doing." The guy actually trained to check if the catcher is ok and to do something about it if he is not ok is the guy that should be going to see if he is ok. If I am not clear, that is the trainer. The distance from the dugout is not that much different than the mound and I don't think anyone would object if the trainer jogged out there every time the catcher caught one on the noggin. It may sound a little cold but there is nothing the pitcher can do. Same thing with the umpire. You don't need a mound visit to give the umpire a little time to collect himself. Have the trainer come out and give him the time he needs. Player and umpire safety and common sense trump length of the game but player/umpire safety and common sense says that medical staff trump the pitcher and catcher when it comes down to who should monitor it.

Because of the history you just listed, I said at the beginning of the off season that if they got a good reliever and Cobb I would give them an A- because our history is that we get a Rodney and be done. Not a fan of Rodney but Reed, Odorizzi and Morrison are solid gets. Sadly, Santana and Sano sends our off season grade down a little though no fault of anyone of the Twins Cobb or Lynn on a 2 or 3 year deal gets them an A from me. Probably an A- even if they do nothing more. The goal of the off season should be improvement and I think they have done that.

"Like players, fans also care about the time of the game so long as it doesn’t affect their team. By all means, if the opposing team’s closer is taking too long in between pitches, they should be penalized. But if your slugger needs to readjust his batting gloves for the fifth time, you want that to be his prerogative." Nope! I want him readjusting his batting glove when it needs readjusting, not as part of a ritual. I get that rituals are important to the batter and the pitcher but it is the rituals that need adjusting, not the batting gloves. If Altuve never adjusted his gloves or left the batters box I am guessing he would still be the MVP and his team would still have won the WS. Like many things I equate it to golf. Rushed is no good but those that go at a snails pace don't play any better and cause those they are playing with and those behind them to play at a worse pace. Where's the integrity in that? A pitcher that takes too long between pitches makes a batter uncomfortable so the batter calls time out. The batter that takes too long between pitches to get in the box makes the pitcher uncomfortable. This is the kind of stuff the players should be concerned about relating to integrity of the game. As far as the visits to the mound maybe a study should be done on the results of mound visits.. If a catcher visits the mound during an at bat what was the result of that at bat? If a coach visits the mound what is the result of that at bat vs all the at bats where there is no mound visit? If it can be shown that the pitcher after a coach visit has the equivalent of a 7 ERA then maybe it will convince the coach that either his visit was detrimental or that if he has the urge to visit the mound he should just make the pitching change instead. It would be really interesting if you let the NL have as many visits as they wanted and limited the AL to a total of 3 visits, or even no visits and then compare the results of interleague play with those of the past.

I can if its Napoli. I like this signing so much better.