Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

NYCTK

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,719

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by NYCTK

  1. NYCTK
    I've actually had this thought recently about some other players. Should we think of the skill scale as where we'd expect them to land in the continuum at the big league level? So, if Royce Lewis has a 55 speed and 42 arm strength on Savant, should we basically be thinking of that as a 50 speed and 45 arm?
  2. NYCTK
    Could be. It was very curious. After Kirby Puckett, I will always roll my eyes anytime someone says a player is a good guy. We have no idea. And, a lot of players that are painted as bad clubhouse guys, maybe they're just introverts that treat their job like a job and don't open up to journalists. Even someone like AJ Pierzynski, someone that took it too seriously and got on people's nerves, turns out he is a much better guy than a lot of "good guys". Unless you're close personal friends or friends with someone, you have no idea if they're a good or bad guy.
  3. NYCTK
    Ironically the thing that might have cost him a spot in Cooperstown was pushing his body to achieve a No-Hitter. Throwing 134 ptiches to achieve his only career no-hitter and his second consecutive Shutout, finishing the game with a 2.79 FIP and 2.38 ERA and 44 IP on the season, he would throw only 49 more innings in his career with an 8.27 ERA
  4. NYCTK
    As someone that was probably the biggest Martin hater on this website I want to offer a mea culpa. His defense, while not stellar, has proven competent enough to prove he's greater than just a replacement level player. He'll never hit for power, but his contact is good enough to expect league average, or just under league average, value with the bat. That with league fine defense in OF is worth a bench/platoon spot. The Twins should make sure they don't use his remaining option this season and he will still have that valuable flexibility next season in the event they are actually competing.
  5. NYCTK
    Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm not discussing this in good faith. In no way do I, or the players, view this as at all commensurate with giving up a salary cap. And one that removes the guaranteed nature of the contracts they sign. So say the owners. Nothing in the evidence even shows this to be true. The owners are demanding it, and threatening to kill the sport so they can get it, but we are under no obligation to believe them. I don't know why you're attacking minor league representation by MLBPA, as if they didn't basically double their standard of living in their very first CBA. The Major League CBA and MiLB CBA are different agreements so we will see in another year how much the union is able to win from the owners then. Sure buddy.
  6. NYCTK
    Players also proposed a floor.... I just fundamentally disagree with this. This is nothing but theory. There's no reason to believe the league is on shaky grounds right now. Nothing in league wide attendance or TV viewership suggests this is true. Ironically, not even Twins fans are signaling disaster to the Pohalds. Attendance is only down about 150 per game from last season YOY, despite their refusal to even pretend to care about the product. The owners aren't offering free agency after 3 seasons. Until they do, we shouldn't pretend they're offering it. I do think, in the extremely unlikely scenario where we end up with a hard cap, that this will be the case though. TV. Attendance. General Fan Interest. I have seen absolutely no evidence (outside of anecdotal belly aching) that the league has real issues that need immediate addressing. I ask you again, what are the owners offering commensurate with the huge demand of a salary cap? A demand so strong that they're threatening to kill the very sport they are arguing to protect? The players have fought for decades to refuse a salary cap, and the owners have offered very little and are instead leaning on fan sentiments and emotions to fight the battle for them in the public arena. All in a ruse of competitive balance.
  7. NYCTK
    I suppose you could argue partial revenue makes the Petite Bourgeoisie as accurate, more freelance than working class but it doesn't change the class dynamics at play for me. The median MLB player ending their career in 2026 will have seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 million hit their bank account. Someone like Wallner but usually with a lower draft/international bonus. A nice head start but not wealthy. Fair. But what "problems" face the MLB that are fixed by a hard salary cap? The ownership argues competitive balance, but as Twins fans we know the reason the team sucks is because the Pohlads suck and the front office sucks. It's not because the Dodgers gave Kyle Tucker $60 million or because Ohtani took a below market deal to specifically play for the Dodgers. If we want the teams like the Pirates and Guardians to have better opportunities to sign free agents that is fixable by owners better sharing their revenue amongst themselves. There's nothing to suggest a hard cap is necessary to address this issue at all. The only problem the hard cap fixes is the MLB franchise value problem. The owners are jealous that the stronger predictability of other leagues expenses means their assets are more valuable. Well why are you pretending the owners offer is better for these half of players when we both know it's untrue? I can guarantee you that Paul Skenes absolutely rejects a salary cap so you should probably quit pretending to care about him. The fact of the matter is, the league by and large is as healthy as it's ever been, with true issues that need to be addressed. But the owners are threatening to lock out the players for as long as necessary unless the players agree to a provision they've pointedly rejected for decades. What on earth are the owners offering that comes close to making this demand reasonable? Plus, none of this even mentions that the MLBPA claims, and I tend to believe them since I estimated something similar, that the owner's opening proposal was cutting $500 Million in player pay+benefits. Maybe we don't need to buy into the owner's arguments just because of fan emotion's and a desire to see our favorite team do well.
  8. NYCTK
    They're one and the same. Billionaires cry poor, run PR campaigns to further enrich themselves through the exploitation of others. Half of the players or so are on league min contracts. I keep hearing from pro ownership fans (and yes that is your position by arguing for a hard cap) that the owners offer helps more players while the players offer only helps the top. But which offer proposed doubling the league minimum? The players also offered a floor, a soft one, to match the soft cap they already agreed to years ago. We want to increase penalties, closer to the NBA? Great let's have that discussion but let's do so as honest brokers. You're literally arguing to enrich the billionaires but have been convinced it's to better the game. Solidarity with the proletariat.
  9. NYCTK
    Except proposal one calls for doubling your pay. And proposal two did nothing explicitly for the half of the workforce, and importantly while if the company does well you can get a bonus, if the company does poorly you're getting your pay docked. Sure, when you make crap up it's very easy. Sure seems like you're coming at this truly neutral! And importantly those loudmouths as you call them make up only a small percentage of the union voting body. The union are against it, not because they're stupid. Fair, and fans of the Twins should realize a salary cap means players would be able to leave after 3 seasons instead of 6. Does that really help the Twins compete? The theory of more teams bidding, pushing up contracts was an interesting one, but the article was incredibly shallow with no actual analysis. A line graph showing team payrolls going up is not exactly noteworthy or convincing. You can convince yourself of that, but ask yourself WHY the players should give up their greatest bargaining chip. Because Bob Nutting sucks, and therefore the players should agree to help him out? The owners will continue to cry about how it's necessary and then you look around the league and realize the issues are entirely the owner's own doing. Greater revenue sharing is entirely an owner issue. But like billionaires do, they'll cry through about how they need help, demanding socialism for them and their investments, while simultaneously working behind the scenes to screw everyone over. Spending millions to make sure the little guy is hurt if they think they can make millions +$1.
  10. NYCTK
    No. It's because sellers sell and buyers buy. My mighty mets are dog **** this year and will be selling a few assets as well. However the Twins don't NEED to sell because there's still the off-season, even if that off-season is marred by an ownership lockout.
  11. NYCTK
    The dodgers, and mets, spending willy nilly is an issue and do think it needs attention. But I wouldn't consider proposing a salary cap fair at all. Nor do the players considering they have been very vocal about the fact they will not accept one. So, ask yourself how fair you'd feel an offer was when it included one provision you have been unwavering about. Well, the players proposed a soft floor to go along with the already existing soft cap, so I don't agree that this doesn't address the issue you're most concerned with. You can say it's not good enough but it's, by any measure, a more good faith offer than the owners. There's quite literally no evidence of that. You're just saying **** because you want a hard salary cap. The fact is only the players proposed a pay increase for the half of the league on minimum contracts. And in existing salary cap leagues we often see the stars still get paid and the middle tier players get squeezed. The 90% you insist want a salary cap elect their union reps and the union is steadfast in their refusal to accept that restriction on their earnings. Like I said, I've tried to do my own research and seen it line up with other people's research that the players currently make about 52% of revenue in pay and benefits, meaning the owners offer is quite literally a pay cut. And, importantly, the escrow means their salaries are no longer guaranteed. If the owners start cheating revenue somehow, as we've seen often in Hollywood, the players would be cheated as well. I will fight for a socialist structure of MLB when we have public ownership of the teams. In reality, the billionaire welfare queens beg for our money all the time and then turn around and create propaganda campaigns to convince the fans that the players are the ones being greedy. That **** don't work on me. Since both my teams suck this year I'm becoming an annoying champion of the proletariat, knocking down ownership talking points whenever I see them.
  12. NYCTK
    Even with it 15 years ago, I keep forgetting how cheap that deal was. Incredible deal.
  13. NYCTK
    Harrison Bader contract is up there as best in franchise history. Can't be too high though, obviously, as a one year deal.
  14. NYCTK
    Just because fans don't understand deferrals doesn't mean it's manipulation. Even though Ohtani is only making $2 Million this year, the Dodgers are getting taxed as though he is getting paid $44 Million. Deferrals are the least important issue in this CBA. They could, with greater revenue sharing. A salary cap is not necessary to fix the things people think needs fixing. And, most importantly, the players will not agree to a hard cap.
  15. NYCTK
    There's no reason to believe the NBA or NFL popularity are helped by a salary cap. It's just pointed to because they exist successfully.
  16. NYCTK
    I don't know that this is a good assumption. I've tried to do my own research and found player compensation including benefits and bonuses, closer to 52%. If that were true that's a loss of $240 million by the players. But let's just assume good faith and say it is — either my estimate is wrong or the owners are willing to bump up the share. It's close enough I'm willing to grant that. The reduced risk of their largest expense is hugely beneficial. Which would then also have savings in financing costs, all resulting in increased franchise values. The billionaires care about growing their investment. They don't care about competitive balance outside of what it means for their bottom line. They're happy to see the Dodgers win every year if it means more money for them. There's nothing to suggest the salary cap is responsible for growth in interest in the other leagues. It's theorized but for the NFL especially, it's just completely undone by the fact the second most popular league is college football. NBA. Is it popular because of the salary cap? The most popular teams the last decades were ones in which the stars took less money to help build super teams. And fewer people watch the Finals than the World Series. (although the Knicks in it this year will hugely increase viewership) So, the players themselves, like Jalen Brunson deprive themselves of a market deal in order to win where they want, skirting the very intentions of the salary cap to allow Competitive Balance. I'm not swayed by someone making what I believe to be a bad decision for purely selfish reasons.
  17. NYCTK
    There's no reason to believe them when they say they're proposing it to help competitive balance. That's a sales pitch. The owners care about the long term health of the league but there's no reason to believe a salary cap helps that. Everyone keeps pointing to the NFL, as if that level of domination is because of competitive balance. I call BS. If that were why, the second most popular sports league wouldn't be COLLEGE football. There's no parity in college football, but America can't get enough. There's no reason to believe NBA is popular because of their salary cap. Those rules are convoluted and no one understands them, and even so world series is still a bigger event. Ironically, I think the NBA is at it's most popular when they have a super team, just as in any sport, but it's way easier to do in basketball since you really only need 3 players. And I think that's the truth no one wants to admit. Fans LOVE having a Goliath in their league. I hated the late 90s Yankees, but I watched them every October praying on their downfall. Same with the Dodgers today. You don't think there are 12 year old boys stoked to watch the Dodgers lose, experiencing schadenfreude at Betts steep decline, wanting to see Freeman join him down that hill? While simultaneously in awe at the greatest baseball player of all time? Increase revenue sharing amongst teams, but there will not, nor should not, be a hard salary cap.
  18. NYCTK
    I am getting my information from an ex mlb owner who is heavily pro owner. So I trust him in this regard. He'd spin it if he could and was upfront about the owners offers squirrely nature. Fair point that unless we read the details we don't know for sure. And even if we do, we stand a decent chance of misunderstanding them.
  19. NYCTK
    No. The players offer was payroll separate from benefits. Owners are playing games to win public favor.
  20. NYCTK
    Occam's Razor says this.
  21. NYCTK
    Three points: 1. Owners can become increasingly clever in disguising "baseball" revenue, and therefore stealing wages, which everyone should expect since exploitation is the only way to become a billionaire outside of inheritance or divorce settlement 2. I don't actually think the primary reason for the cap is decreasing salary, but making it more predictable of an expense, pushing up franchise valuations. 3. If one fan on an internet blog no one reads is coming to a conclusion that flies in the face of what both the MLBPA and Owners believe, it's probably extremely faulty. In fact, I know it's a bad article because he's looking exclusively at payroll salary and not including any other player benefits. I've read analysis pegging current MLB share of revenue at 52%.
  22. NYCTK
    And it's worth reminding everyone that if you want a cap, you have to be willing to break the players union, meaning we're going a full season without baseball. If you care about a salary cap that much, I question why, but that's the trade off. Are you actually willing to help the billionaires and go a year without baseball just so the Twins can still suck under a salary cap?
  23. NYCTK
    Reminder the 245/171 does not include the 20m or so of ancillary player spending, meaning the realistic payroll cap/floor they proposed is $225m/$150m. Once you make that adjustment and realize the difference between hard and soft caps you realize how far apart they two camps are.
  24. NYCTK
    I can promise you the players don't care if the owners decide to level the playing field by sharing their TV revenue. Which is the single best thing that can come out of this dispute. That is entirely an ownership battle.
  25. NYCTK
    No. You're acting as a propaganda arm of the owners. The prices go up because the OWNERS want more money. The players have absolutely no sway over the cost of anything in the ballpark, except maybe signed memorabilia or stuff that would actually need to go through MLBPA.
×
×
  • Create New...