TheLeviathan

I mean...sure, if you want to trade him for a nice 1B I'm in. But the advantages Castro brings, as is, are still abundantly clear IMO. Especially given the way the Twins employ their roster.

What a hideous spectacle that was. Beef up your DL and OL.

People should remember that these billionaires could increase the payroll by 20M and probably find it between their couch cushions.

I think the Raiders going so hard (and publicly, without much shame) means we might be able to tag him and deliver him to the Raiders for some draft picks. Even if we get their two third round picks for him I'd be happy.

A team that hunts match-up advantages through lineup substitutions really shouldn't be looking to dump a switch hitter who can play anywhere but catcher. This is the kind of player this organization's philosophy absolutely demands. Couple that with being one of the only guys in the lineup that isn't slow....I absolutely see the value. This team should be getting Larnach a 1B glove and planting Castro in LF most days with his flexibility allowing them to move others to the DH spot for some rest. More directly....why are people overreacting to the Twins looking for a backup middle infielder? This roster has plenty of room for a backup SS and Willi Castro. I mean...we have people talking about Mickey Gaspar making the team and we think signing a backup infielder relegates him irrelevant? Yeah, I don't get that conclusion at all.

Well, you dodged the fact that your example worked against your point. But it's the key to understanding mine: your suggestion only works if there is a cap/floor system. Without a way to cap the massive financial advantages, extra shots at the prospect pool is irrelevant. And I don't think there is any path to smooth those advantages without a cap/floor.

Except the Braves have the 5th highest revenue in baseball. They are part of the problem. Yes, they do things in a way you'd like smaller market teams to do, but they can afford to because they have a giant TV contract. While I'm perfectly fine giving smaller market teams more bites at the prospect pool, it doesn't change the other problems that high revenue teams pose to competitive balance. It may allow some teams to pop up and challenge them, but those teams still have a year-in, year-out advantage based purely on their market and TV deals. Truth is....owners will siphon money no matter what. This is why they keep their books closed to the public. They siphon money from the states/cities they reside. The tax payers. The players. The states/cities their affiliates are in. On and on. It's how wealth works in this country regardless of MLB. And while there are downsides to a floor, the upsides to a cap are worth the risk.

I understand where you are coming from making sure players get more money than the owners. But I think if you share revenues, the only option is a cap and floor. Hopefully the PA is strong enough to get a 60/40 split, but that's the only real path forward.

In the NHL, if you're losing or have a hard road to climb....it's not because of your TV deal. Maybe you sign bad contracts, or draft poorly, or made poor decisions in team composition. In the NFL, if you can't elevate your team it's because you sign bad contracts, hire bad coaches, draft poorly, fail to develop a QB. But it's not because you signed the wrong TV contract. I won't touch the NBA because their mess of a "cap" is so preposterous and poorly formed I think you could get a kindergartner, a crayon, and five minutes and they could come up with a better one. And I have bad news for some of you....2027 isn't going to be the answer we want. And the reason for that is simple: as long as the big markets have massive TV contracts and the league hasn't taken a step to curb that, they aren't going to get any consensus to move forward. That's an issue that has to be resolved first and I just don't think the stars will ever align on it. I hope I'm wrong. As for parity? Good lord, I can't believe any of these writers (or anyone for that matter) would argue that champion variety equates to parity. That's such an over-simplified, silly way to look at things. Of course MLB has the apprearance of more variety, it's got a WAY higher randomness to it than the other sports. The point is simple: are teams genuinely able - with competence in management - to consistently put themselves in a position to succeed and thrive. In the NHL and the NFL they absolutely are, no matter what market they are in. The MLB is quite obviously not that way.

It's well deserved. Dude won 14 games with a guy who was all but drummed out of having a shot to start at QB. (And...likely will be re-drummed out within 2 years)

I'm really unclear why this team is shopping Ryan or Ober in any deal other than to get a really good young bat. If they want Ober for Mayo...well we can have a chat then. But shopping him for Cease and Mountcastle feels like a really, really bad use of assets.

If people think Gaspar is going to take the spot of Julien or Lee.....then that Bader thread is missing the wrong guy to take their anger out on for blocking young talent.

I expected a vigorous argument that Bader > Torres. No? Oh right...because the notion that it's not the Tigers is preposterous.

I like that we can actually discuss something, even if it's Harrison Bader stoking the argument. I imagine you'll see something like this most days: SS Correa 3B Lewis RF Wallner CF Buxton LF Larnach 1B Miranda 2B Lee C Jeffers DH - Some guy that Castro swaps in for So I don't get the idea that Bader is a starter. He's just raising the floor - especially defensively and somewhat against LHP - for the team. I don't love the move and I've tried to be a believer in Martin, but his inability to play any positions makes that stance really difficult to hold. So I find the move rational, but not inspiring.

Not only did they set society back at least a century, they took part in raising a generation of soul-less malcontents who are happy to blame everyone but their parents.

Can I both be ok with it and hate it at the same time? We need more speed on this team. We need a good defensive OF who can hit RH. I think, in theory, this is the kind of player I could get behind. On the other hand....way more than I'd like to have spent, his LH platoon splits weren't great last year (though career wise they have been fine), and the only reason I even like it at all is how same-y our OF is. This feels like getting roped in by the bar of low expectations and being ok to settle.

This is why I joked that Marty Schottenheimer has a chance....with a little necromancy.....at another coaching gig. It ain't out of the question.

They should try for dead money on Garret and Watson just for giggles at this point. Blow that franchise up. Again.

This thread really brings me back to 1995.

TD is having to "get creative" to keep coming up with article subjects until spring training. No offense intended, you're trying to serve dinner with no meat on the bones.

Your argument was dismissive of Rocco's knowledge based on the era in which he played. As if someone has to retire in 2022 to be able to manage in 2023. The original poster's claim was simply that Rocco has a wealth of baseball experience. That his own personal style of play and experience aligns with a less modern approach. How successful he was or wasn't or how far that time has past aren't relevant criticisms. No one would argue against TK's knowledge of the game and he managed 100 ABs and hit .181. Clearly his experience didn't lead to the offensive powerhouses we saw in 1987 and 1991. Your attempt to discount his "wisdom" is basically a flimsy ad hominem.

My understanding is that there are three tags: Transition, Exclusive, and Non-Exclusive. Exclusive means you pretty much tag them for a top 5 salary and it's over. Non-exclusive allows them to go out and seek other offers, but at the cost of 2 first round picks. No player under that tag has signed a deal since Joey Galloway in 2000. In other words - that ain't happening for Darnold. Transition has no draft compensation, but teams can match a deal. The other downside is that the player will be on your cap if you put that tag on them, limiting your cap space. (But there are ways around that) I would bet they tag Darnold and end up getting something like a 3rd and a 4th for him.

If manager expertise is determined by "how much did they play in the era they are currently managing" - I think everyone but Pete Rose would be disqualified as an expert. Virtually every manager doesn't get a big league job until 10-20 years after their playing days. By definition, their era was passed by. And Pete would get himself disqualified for other reasons. It's such a preposterous argument to make, putting aside any bias in the argument itself.

It might work, but doesn't the roster still look like a bunch of slow footed mashers?