Major League Ready

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?

I addressed this long ago. Distribute revenue sharing based on spending. In other words, basically have the reverse of the CBT penalty. Tax a lack of spending and redistribute the revenue sharing to teams that are spending. This is the most direct way to deal with this issue. It also decreases the gap which a floor does not. A floor does not change spending capacity. This approach does not have any of the pitfalls associated with a floor.

You simply don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the point. The most salient point of this discussion is acquisition methodology. What practices / strategies have produced playoff teams. If a SP produces 1 WAR it has no relevance how that player was acquired.

I understand where you are coming from. Where we disagree is that I believe the owners interest is much more in alignment with fans. As I have said, this is not for altruistic reasons. It's because preserving the sport is in their financial best interest. This is not a hunch. I have worked with hundreds of companies and the vast majority are very focused on satisfying their customers. Players are demanding things that clearly illustrate they don't have parity or the best interest of the game in mind. It pisses me off they have the audacity to push for a much higher CBT threshold, less revenue sharing, and shorter control while trying to tell us they are worried about competitive integrity. These things very clearly widen the disparity between top revenue and bottom revenue teams. The owners tried to improve parity with increased penalties. Is this good for them financially? Of course, is it also good for the game? Of course. Which position better serves a Minnesota twins fan or the game in general? I most certainly am not naive. I spent a decade advising very large companies on similar / parallel issues. I fully realize their interest is the bottom line. My experience also leads me to the conclusion that players are focused only on getting a bigger piece of the pie and the owner's interest better align with fans.

They would replace bench roles that are generally very low paid players. Those bench roles would be replaced by a starter in the form of a DH and they would be paid the average of an American League DH. It would basically prolong careers of players who get paid quite well for their bat. Candidly, I am basically repeating what the various radio personalities on MLB network have suggested would happen. Guys like Nelson Cruz would be out of the league considerably sooner without the DH. This will provide those opportunities for several players. There are many players who remain very good offensively who become a defensive liability late in their career. This would obviously extend careers of high paid players. This is pretty obvious. I think people are going out of their way to discredit the value to players or the league for that matter when we all know this would be good players.

I completely agree it's fairytale. It was in response to a post that suggested higher player salaries are somehow beneficial to the game or fans. What either side makes is of no consequence to fans which this fairytale illustrates. Most people are employess and a whole lot of them feel they should be better compensated. Therefore, they align with the side with who, they identify. I don't hear any discussion in terms of the relative merit of MLB's offer. Prearb players were due a raise IMO. They were offered an increase of $150K or 26%. However, you can't only consider the league minimum. The bonus pool like any bonus needs to be considered in tot comp. Average comp to prearb players goes from $570K to $808K by my calculations. They also eliminated draft pick forfeiture which is obviously good for players. However, it will have some negative impact on lower revenue teams in terms of their ability to hold onto players. The universal DH which would mean replacing 10-15 jobs with much higher paying jobs. Net effect of something in the neighborhood of $100M to players. Good for the game but also good for players. Owners foot the bill. Expanded playoffs means more pay for players. Teams spend at least 85% of revenue on employees and operating cost. Therefore, the players benefit at least as much from the players from the TV revenue. More fans would be engaged which is good for the game, good for fans, good for players, and good for owners but the players fight playoff expansion as well. They also added a draft lottery. An international draft would also help level the playing field and improve parity. Denied by the players, why? Let's be clear, we don't have baseball because players refuse to play under these terms. How was the free agent market going before the lockout. Did the signings suggest veteran players were not able to negotiate great contracts? The average payroll has been around $140M the last few years. Therefore, the average player capable of making an opening day roster earned $5.38M. We have players making over $40M season. Scherzer would earn roughly 1.34M per game if he remained perfectly healthy and he would make $43M next year if he didn’t play at all. Sota turned down $350M. Does this sound like conditions under which employees should refuse to work?

The average income for players that made the opening day roster the last couple years is around $5.3M. How does it change the game or our experience as fans if they made $3M/year on average? I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. We agree player income has skyrocketed. Yet, even with the considerable increases proposed they are not willing to work for what equates to generational wealth in many cases. Which by the way your dollars pay their salary. So, while your income you utilize to pay those salaries has gone up 7X over the past 50 years, player's income has gone up 140X. That makes it pretty hard for an average guy to afford to go to a game. What if the owners all decided to provide free streaming and cut the price of attendance in half and adjusted spending on free agents to compensate? That would cut player compensation considerably. They could adjust free agent spending to maintain their profit level as well. Would that be bad for the game? Why should I care if top free agents get $175m instead of $350M. How does this change the game for fans? What would change the game would be to widen the gap in the CBT threshold. Yet, people seem to cheer for it to be raised. I fail to comprehend the logic. What would hopefully change or improve parity is an Internation draft which the players rejected. What would hopefully improve the game is the rule changes the players rejected. Now, IDK how effective these rule changes would be, but something has to be done and the union is an impediment. The only thing that makes sense as to why they are standing in the way is because these are bargaining chips and it irritates the hell out of me those potential improvements are rejected for bargaining position. The Players are clearly demonstrating a willingness to prioritize compensation over the game.

We could have also been playing ball had the players accepted the latest offer. Here are the facts... The players were not exactly starting from a bad place as evidenced by the contracts handed out before the lock-out. The average payroll has been around $140M the last few years. Therefore, the average player capable of making an opening day roster earned $5.38M. We have players making over $40M season. Scherzer would earn roughly 1.34M per game if he remained perfectly healthy and he would make $43M next year if he didn’t play at all. The premise that the existing salary for veterans or the free agent market was not adequate is absurd. In addition they qualifying offer was removed which obviously was a gain but once again only advantages the top 5%. The CBT increase is no doubt modest. Why are we not dead set as Twins fan on minimizing any further advantage held by top revenue teams? The raise to offered to prearb players was $150K on the minimum or 26% plus $30M in a bonus pool which equates to roughly 88K per full-time equivalent earning the minimum. This assumes 100 full-time equivalents are used to replace injured players. In other words, 4 players playing 4 games each are 1 FTE. I could be a little off on this but I was not about to track down the exact numbers for a point that will be ignored. That’s a total average increase of $238K and average of $808K and a raise of 41%. Of course they also offered a DH which would mean 10-15 jobs at an average around $10M so another $100M to players. The fact is that the players said we are unwilling to work under these terms where players turn down $300M contracts and the average minimum is double the average pay for an ER doctor. Anyone capable of sticking on a roster for 10 years as a bench player can retire at 34-35 and never work a day in the life. Those poor bastards. How can we expect them to work under these terms. If the union went away tomorrow, baseball players would still make ungodly money and we would have none of this chaos. Perhaps more importantly, the owners would not have to work around players to institute rule changes that are necessary to counteract the changes that have led to three outcome baseball. The premise that the players position has anything to do with parity or the long-term interest of the game is extremely naive. You can't ask for shorter control and a big raise in the CBT, and a reduction in revenue sharing and insist you are interested in quality of competition. Those demands were clearly not in the best interest of the game but the players are fighting for these changes in spite of the negative effect because it increases their income, and you know those $100M or $200M or $300M contracts just are not enough.