ashbury

I just want to speak up to say that I have taken part in this project for a few years now, and it's been a lot of fun. I'm not a prospect guru or anything, just a Twins fan. Looking after two or three players a year, especially if I manage to pick guys at differing levels of the organization, gives me a good excuse to check up on recent box scores and to see how the farm system is coming along. This is mostly to entertain myself, with a hope that a few readers at least get something out of it. Bringing out my Inner Sportswriter is one aspect of doing it. For different players, I may take different tacks - for instance my log of Aaron Slegers's progress last season included a lot of ripe puns regarding his unusual height, while with my quixotic choice of Austin Bizzle (2017's final draft pick) I indulged in wordplay regarding his unusual name. Others take a more straightforward approach. I've made it to Spring Training once or twice, so the opportunity to snap some action photos came in handy when I got around to adopting a prospect. But there are plenty of photos on the internet, of practically any player out there, to enliven the page you create. I find it fun to read the daily box score, with my adopted player in mind. Most days, there is also a professional writeup of the game (newspapers online, etc), and I can glean nuggets about my player from it. Sometime before the minor league season starts, I should collect and share the various little tools I've bookmarked to make this kind of analysis possible. Basically, the idea is to think of ways to make it fun - and then it really is! Maybe some fellow "adoptive parents" will want to share their thoughts on this project, as well.

Yeah, they don't tend to call teams that can punch you in the teeth with power "piranhas". Let's hope that's how it plays out.

There’s no such thing as “never” in baseball.

I'm going to check with Chief and get his take on the pros and cons before deciding.

The difference between fastballs and breaking pitches becomes more nuanced and elusive to me, not less. Just like all the important issues of the day.

I'm getting a little bit of a Roger Maris vibe from your guy.

Yes and no. When a new player comes in, some roster slot is taken away from an incumbent player who may very well have been happy in his present circumstance. If he's no good anymore, so be it, but if he's able to latch onto a job somewhere else, it means a move which is undesirable even if he chooses the destination. Such is life, but I'm just pointing out it's not quite so simple.

Not being a Wu-Tang guy particularly, I depends upon you guys to keep me a little culturally literate, even at this late date.

This is a nice summary. The downside is that market forces are the easiest way to accomplish this, but going that route at an earlier point in the career comes at the cost of potentially ripping a fan-favorite player from the team earlier than at present. Sports franchises aren't dealing in commodities like soybeans.

Though I had no idea my fanciful little thought would generate this much comment, the discussion has been good with several worthwhile points raised. Again, a MLB contract has obligations on both sides, and we don't know what degree of pain or other factors may be involved for Hughes, even with a DL stint as a fallback for him. If a player has decided he has had enough, no player's union can force him to keep up his side of the contract. It's a rare outcome; but we were putting down our "bets" and I figured I'd try a longshot that no one else was likely to choose.

[stage whisper}: NO!

Retirement was exactly the case that I raised in the first place. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28781-when-do-the-twins-cut-bait-with-phil-hughes/?p=718128 Mine was a just-for-fun response to the OP with no actual information to suggest Hughes really has such plans, but it's a very comparable scenario to Cuddyer's if it happened to play out that way. Anyway, the article linked earlier specifically says Cuddyer did what you said was not possible: a valid contract was renegotiated and a retirement was announced.

MLBTR is better sourced than my flippant post was.

Your missive was disproportionately diminutive and therefore my perusal of it was circumvented.

FYI, I tried to PM you today and the system couldn't send it. Is your inbox here perhaps full?

Bet it doesn't. / Nothing wrong with your post, nor with thoughtful responses to it, within reason - and your recognition of the risk is appreciated

Mike Trout has no rings to date. Just sayin'.

You have started IMO at a good place for analyzing the issue. You need to be able to construct 40 WAR on a $100M+ budget, if everything falls into place for you; a bit of revenue sharing is needed for a few of the weaker franchises to reach this level. OTOH having additional payroll resources should make it easier to achieve success - just, not a slam dunk. And I agree with your solution.

Perhaps things have changed since 2016. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/images/players/head_shot/150212.jpg https://www.mlb.com/news/michael-cuddyer-mets-reach-buyout-agreement/c-165936318

A fairly major revamping of the entire salary structure seems called for, at the next CBA. Higher minimum salaries... a team payroll floor that they can allocate however they see fit... maybe a little adjustment in when players can reach free agency. What has to be handled with care though is teams in modest-sized markets being capable of keeping their good players as they reach the good part of their careers, so that fans retain a rooting interest. My general benchmark of a successful readjustment would be if top salaries come down a little, while overall payrolls continue to increase along with revenue. I.e. spread the (considerable) wealth a little more. The very, very best players truly can be worth in the region of $40M or more to their teams per season at their peaks, but it's (IMO of course) not quite healthy for the game to have them reap that kind of reward - pro sports aren't a purely free market because (for example) allowing a few teams to fade out every decade or so isn't a good option. Those very top players still derive much of their value by virtue of having opponents to play against; Clayton Kershaw should buy every guy he strikes out a steak dinner in gratitude. I don't have a good solution to offer in that respect.

Without demeaning these players' opinions, it sounds to me like Tony Clark has been talking to team reps and giving them a few talking points to begin interviews with. They are presenting a united front.

A point too infrequently recognized.

An extension of the negotiation process, then. The negotiations that lead up to it may be key. And I believe that there is time to come to an agreement once both parties submit their offers to the arbitrator. It's more of a spectrum, than a refusal to negotiate. Being overly risk averse when arbitration approaches, as John Bonnes seemed to be saying was the word on the street, would not be good negotiating tactics. Neither would the other extreme, but that wasn't the topic John brought up.

Reaching arbitration doesn't imply a refusal to negotiate. Indeed it's another form of negotiation, coming after the first rounds didn't reach agreement, assisted by an arbitrator who follows certain rigid rules. Maybe Bonnes will circle back here to amplify a bit on what he meant by "Players’ agents have mocked the Twins perceived unwillingness (or inability) to risk arbitration", and maybe my characterization that they were viewed as "poor" negotiators was going too far; to me it indicated a lack of conviction by the team as to their own numbers, from the POV of those agents.

It was barely 9 am on my clock when I posted that. You guys must have jumped the gun or something. As for today's pick, I'll go to the well again by taking Ben Rortvedt. I figured someone would have snapped him up by now. You snooze you lose. And when the times comes, fo' shizzle I'll take Austin Bizzle.