Major League Ready

Donaldson had negative trade value so this can't possibly be true. The trade favored the Yankees because of that negative trade value. However, you are failing to recognize the $20M/AAV saved. Therefore, if they sign Story, it would be fair to say this the two trades netted Garver / Donaldson / Rortvedt for Story / Urshela / Sanchez and Henriquez. If they don't sign Story or something similar it's a different story, pun intended.

Yes and I think the twins are willing to go there. All of the other stuff points to them having this in hand. I think they already have a deal or they would not have moved IKF. I don't have any inside information but that's sure the way it looks.

There are not many team with the money to sign Story left looking for a SS and Houston would appear unwilling to go to age 35 for a SS. Plus, other teams are looking to move him off of SS. I don't think he is getting a 7 year deal, especially if he wants to remain at SS. 5 years/110M or 6/120M is my guess.

IDK what I was thinking on Urshela having 5 years control so that takes some of the shine off that swap. However, I have always said I would trade Donaldson if they could get someone to take most of his salary. Of course, there is no upside if they don't invest the money elsewhere. I would bet we see some additional investment.

You noticed I did not even mention Sanchez. He does not matter much in this deal. He gets moved or used as a DH / emergency catcher. I know I am going to be checking the Story rumors every hour!

This is not at all confusing if their goal is to add Story and given the uncertainty of their SS prospects that makes sense. With Story, the net of all of this is a huge improvement at SS, plus a front line SP, plus a big defensive improvement at 3B. Plus, when Miranda takes over we have a great utility player or trade asset. I am a Donaldson fan but he had negative trade value and his defense at 3B was definitely fading. He may or may not be more valuable than Urshela this year but getting him off the books for 23 and the $8M buyout in 2024 provides the opportunity for other additions. Urshela has 5 years of control. He had a bad year last year but he produced 3.1 WAR in 2019 and 1.6 WAR in 43 games during the covid year. That equates to 5 WAR had he played 135 games. I like this trade. They will be worse a Catcher but much better at SS and starting pitching. An infield of Kirilloff / Polanco / Story / Urshela looks pretty darn good to me. Add Sonny Gray and this year looks waaay better then it did a week ago. It's also noteworthy that this almost certainly takes the Yankees out of the free agent SS market.

They didn't trade Garver for IKF. The traded Garver for IKF and a pitching prospect. Most everyone is looking at this purely from a current year lens. I agree it makes no sense if Henriquez has no value. If the front office believes he has value, and if you look beyond the current year, this is not a strange move at all. This is the exact pattern they followed in Cleveland so I don't find it at all curious they would make this type of trade.

Looking at the pitching prospect they got was less than encouraging given he is 5'10". However, the right up on him actually looks pretty decent. I am a big Garv fan but if this works out to be a solid bridge to Lewis and they get a decent starting pitcher, sign me up. They need sold D at SS more than they need Garver's bat.

Were the Ray's tanking when they traded Snell in route to a 100 win season? Were The White Sox tanking when they traded Sale and Eaton or was it the best way for them to build a contender? The Cubs and Astros basically did the same thing in route to building WS winners. The Mariners are looking like they are the latest example. Their rebuild started with trading Cano & Diaz to the Mets which looks pretty darn smart now.

Bassit and Semien were acquired for a pitcher Samardzija) with one year of control.

This not getting done because of the implementation of an International Draft is absolutely absurd. It's good for American players but a problem for international players? Not to mention it would be good for the game. They should be packing their bags for spring training.

When we submit business reports with conclusions in the real world, we list our assumptions as they are generally crucial in validating the conclusions being presented. In this case, there is an assumption an agreement will be reached in less than X days where X represents the number of missed games before television revenue has to returned. Of course, if this went on until near that date, the players would just hold out because their leverage would change significantly once that date was reached. Without that revenue, teams would be losing the nearly all their revenue sources. We are also missing fixed operating costs. If you are not familiar with this term, it’s costs that are not variable. For example, player travel is a variable operating cost. In this case, the cost of the all of the non-player personnel is ignored. Do they have debt service to pay? Leased equipment, office space, etc? Determining if there would be a profit or loss is not all that complicated if our assumption is that it is not reasonable to assume that a CBA will be reached within days of the TV rebate deadline. In that case, the loss would be estimated as whatever revenue streams remain which is next to nothing, less the cost of all non-player personnel, debt service, equipment, monthly contracts such as data center, security services, and monthly subscription services. The players on the other hand won’t be making anything but there expenses are limited to whatever the spend to stay in shape. The premise that the side that gains the most if this persists is the side with hundreds of employees to pay is not credible unless you believe the players are so monumentally stupid they would cave just before the league had to return tv revenue.

Grant Paulson asked a couple different Milb pitchers about it on his radio show. in a nutshell, they said it became so natural that they barely noticed it.

A step in the right direction to promote parity.

You are making an assumption that the decrease in spending means more to the bottom line. You no doubt are aware that teams have added up to 100 new employees for analytics, specialized coaches, and other SMEs. The Cardinals for example have added 100 employees. Take their salaries, benefits, travel, office expense, computer & software, and other administrative expense multiplied by 100 and you have roughly 4% of revenue. Do you think $12M will produce more by investing $12M into a free agent for 1.5 wins or will that investment be more impactful invested in these 100 people and specialized equipment. Do you want your team to be the one that does not make these investments? Another couple percentage points in other changes in how teams could also be present. Some of it could even be random. We had extremely high spending before the lockout. You know baseball but when baseball people think they are business analysts or understand economic analysis we get this type of exceptionally poor conclusions, especially when considerable bias is at hand.

How does this change the fact that teams able to spend above the current CBT threshold would benefit from the threshold increasing? They could increase their competitive advantage without penalty. It also does not address that teams financially unable to surpass that level could not possibly be influenced by trying to save money? The teams that are able to go higher don't have to because the threshold was raised. You are spouting a theory that fits the narrative you like but theory defies logic.

The CBT argument is wholly illogical. The top teams who actually would spend beyond the threshold would love for it to go up. That would save them money in penalties and increase their competitive advantage. The vast majority of teams would never surpass the threshold so how can it possibly be about money for them?

What exactly was inadequate about the offer they received? It is rather mindless to make this statement without something to support your position. It would be far more valuable to outline the league's proposal. You know, present the facts. What did you find most problematic? The 40% raise to prearb players or the elimination of draft pick compensation. Was it the expanded playoffs that pays players $25K game or the universal DH that creates more high paying jobs or was it the league trying to avoid increasing the gap in parity by keeping the increase in the CBT tax modest? Do you have any interest in a rational discussion about the actual facts?

The royals didn't draft and develop well enough to win. It's that simple. They could have spent another $40M a season and added 5 wins. They still would not have been close to contending the majority of seasons. That 40M incremental spending would have added next to nothing to their revenue. Expecting a company to do things that will result in a significant hit to the bottom line is just not logical. If their customers would have spent an extra $45M as a result of them spending an extra $40M, it would be reasonable to expect they invest but that's not the case. That would take 800,000 additional fans at $50/each and it probably would not draw an extra 100,000 unless the return was well above the expected 5 wins.

If a team does not spend, you deem them "not trying to win". The fact is that a win generated through free agency costs over $8M. It is monumentally incompetent for the FO of these teams to do anything but focus on developing from within. Now, should they push spending when they are actually in a competitive window. Sure! Isn't that what the Royals did after sucking for 20 years? They had a 2 year window where they were legit contenders. That window started and was propelled by trading away Greinke.

This response has little relevance to the questions I posed. How does the average pay going up benefit fans? Can you go to your boss and demand a huge rage because company profits went up? Partners who contribute capital share increased profits. Employees do not. How does the CBT going up not widen the gap in parity? Why would you want this as a Twins fans? Still have not heard a single proponent of this explain why fans should want it increased. I presume you will avoid answering too but it sure would be nice to see why fans outside the top markets would support a significant increase in the CBT threshold. Where we really differ is I look at the contracts handed out before the lock-out and have an extremely hard time coming to the conclusion free agents are not adequately compensated. I look at Soto turning down $350 and have a hard time thinking players are disadvantaged. Pre-arbitration compensation needs to go up. Is the 40% proposed increase not adequate in your opinion?

That's a valid concern. They only need to share it with the league. Perhaps even that would be problematic, but I would bet they would prefer this to a floor. IMO a floor is useless in terms of parity. It literally does nothing to decrease the difference in spending capacity. The benefit would be really bad teams would have to sign veterans. So, I ask two questions. Is that what we would want for our team when rebuilding. It seems to me many people here were very upset Simmons was getting playing time. Two, will it really matter if Pittsburgh or whatever team that is losing 100 games spends an extra 35M and loses 96 games. Will that improve the sport?

No. An arbitrary number does not accurately reflect how aggressive a team is spending. The ideal would be a percentage of revenue. In other words, there are teams with 50K more revenue than other teams getting revenue sharing. The same soft floor does not reflect willingness to spend. Therefore, a percentage of revenue make sense.

Maybe you are right. It's just not logical to me. Only 5-6 teams are ever going to approach the threshold proposed by the MLBPA. It makes no sense the remaining 24 teams are trying to save money. They will never be in that position. Even if you stretch that to an extreme and say there are 7 or 8 teams the logic stands. Then, you have to ask yourself why those teams wouldn't want the CBT threshold. It would be a competitive advantage, right? Wouldn't it make more sense the 22-24 teams that can't spend at that level don't want the gap to widen?

If owners were purely driven by greed .... What would stop them from increasing net profit by 10% of revenue even if they gave the players everything they asked for in the CBA. This does not sync with your conclusion. If owners were all as obsessed with maximizing their share as the players, what would stop them from simply cutting their payroll and padding the bottom line?