Major League Ready

If we are going to make a case on pure assumption like we would have extended Pressly, it would be equally fair to say the money that would have gone to Pressly would have resulted in not signing Cruz who produced 4.3 WAR compared to Pressly's 1.6 WAR. I am not saying either form of speculation is sold critical thinking but they are on the same plane.

How about Mark Appel. Drafted 1/1 and never pitched in MLB.

You make an undeniable point which I fully understood long before these threads about this CBA illustrated your point. However, it does depend on the environment. I spent a dozen years doing corporate reorgs which is why I so obnoxiously don't except these refusals to address the facts. In that environment the facts get thoroughly researched and vetted and the assumptions fully validated. Holding on to positions that are not supported by the facts is simply not accepted. You either get on board or get run over. I don't have a problem when the issue is people are unaware of the issues / facts. In this case, the facts are about as clear as it gets. They are in the form of specific demands. The implications / conclusions always have room to be debated but obviously not a single person here would try to suggest the terms were not detrimental to parity. This sort of refusal to address the facts never leads to harmony so pardon me for being a prick about it. Putting your shoulder to the wall is not a good way to earn respect or resolve any issues in any any context / environment.

I have no objection to anything you have said. This all stems from a long series of posts in different threads where people insist a given approach is necessary to reach the playoffs. Ok, show me examples where this approach has succeeded. More importantly, they insist the FO is incompetent because they won't follow the approach they prescribe. I have done the research and I am not guessing in terms of how these teams were built which is why I ask people to give examples of success if they are going to insist the FO is incompetent. Show me where big free agent acquisitions, especially more than 1 have led to playoff success for a below ave revenue team. The fact is that success among this subset of teams has been by far most influenced by players that were drafted follow by players acquired as prospects (generally meaning they traded established players to get them) followed by modest priced free agents. High-end free agents and trades for well-establish players are a very small part in comparison. So, when someone insists what we need to do is follow practices that have proven to be ineffective and the FO is incompetent, I think it's reasonable to ask for some empirical proof of concept.

Wouldn't a 97mph FB with decent control rate 60? Just asking.

That's a pertinent question. However, I have always framed this discussion in the context of playoff teams simply because that's the first goal. Of course sustained success is ambiguous and basically impossible if the standard for sustained is relative to the Yankees and Dodgers. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons since 2000. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. Does sustained be consecutive seasons or relative success over several years. I don't know about you but semantics aside I would opt for the 3 teams that produced (27) 90 win seasons over the (6) that produced 8.

Oh. I get it. You have figured out something no team / no general manger / no front office in the history of baseball has ever been able to figure out. Do you realize how absurd this statement is? No below average revenue team has produced what you feel is sufficient to call sustained success so we should ignore the how the most successful teams are built. If you had identified a more efficient / effective approach like Tampa has utilized this could potentially make sense. However, your plan is to utilize the most inefficient practice of all for player acquisition. The only teams that could claim sustained success are the Yankees and Dodgers who operate in an entirely different realm given their massive revenue advantage. Even their history has clearly illustrated the value of building from within. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. I don't know about you but I would seek to learn something from how Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa built their teams. Players don't hit 600 and teams can't win 90 every season. Expecting perfection or something close is not even remotely reasonable in this scenario. Outperforming all mid and small market teams is a reasonable goal. The acquisition practices that have led to success are an excellent indicator of best practice. I made it even more direct by comparing the acquistion practices that produced playoff teams. What makes sense is to study what practices have been utilized by the most successful teams. You are suggesting we ignore the facts because they don't support your position.

For starters, what happened 2 or 3 or 4 years ago is a different topic. I have no problem with what they did for the 2019 and 2020 seasons. Anyone and I mean anyone could trade away the future for the present. Even the top revenue teams have become very reluctant to trade their top talent. The Dodgers would not be where they are today if they would have traded away any number of players 3-6 years ago to "go for it". Sustaining success is much harder. Most fans put far more weight on the immediate and that's the reason fans hate management. I have gone to a fair amount of effort to summarize how the top WAR players were acquired for playoff teams. I broke them down to drafted / Traded for as prospects or unestablished MLB players / Traded for as established MLB players and free agents. I have posted those summaries here. I have also posted summaries of several teams. In other words, I have posted a great deal of evidence. That information is largely ignored. Of course, I would not expect evidence to sway fanaticism. That would be naive on my part. I have asked many times for people to give even a single example of below average revenue teams that sustained any success (reached the playoffs) that produced a significant portion of their WAR via free agency or specifically established / expensive free agents. Modest or low priced free agents that over achieved have actually played a role. History shows that drafting and development + trading for prospects is by far the most influential form of acquisition for teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Over performing free agents next. High price free agents and high profile trades have a very modest impact so there are many examples if you are willing to look without bias. I am not going to post the information again. It would just be ignored again. I will however mention one more time that for all the bitching about the going for it approach, not a single person has ever been willing to challenge the assertions I have made about talent acquisition with examples. There has to be a couple that at least have some validity. If the methods so often insisted upon here were viable there would be all kinds of examples and posters VERY eager to prove I am full of $h!( and the front office is incompetent. Instead, everyone just refuses to actually take a look at how playoff teams have been constructed in a methodical way. In other words, take the top players in terms of WAR and list how they were acquired.

Absolutely not. This singular focus would make for prolonged mediocrity. That's why Chicago traded away Sale and Eaton. It's why Oakland traded away Samardzija for Semien and Bassit. It's why Seattle traded away Cano / Diaz and on and on. Contending shouldn't even be a consideration for really bad teams. Of course, the Twins have a reasonably good offense and that makes this question debatable. If you want a good indication of what strategy they should be following wouldn't it make sense to study how contenders outside the top 10 in revenue have been built. Shouldn't we want the FO to follow strategies that have been proven effective. The Twins have enough revenue to extend players like they have with Buxton, Polanco, and Kepler. They can also fill a hole or two but trying to rebuild to the extent needed here through Free agency is a very low probability play. Can you give an examples of contenders among teams with similar or less revenue over the past couple decades. Is this how Cleveland or Oakland or Tampa or Pittsburgh or Kansas City or Milwaukee built playoff teams?

I was curious how the IP would work out with less tradition roles. Using these assumptions for the roster spot not necessarily a given pitcher. 3 tradition SPs averaging 4.33 IP and 4 what I will call Hybrid pitchers averaging 3IP plus 3 Two Inning RPs and 3 One IP RPs The innings total looks like this …. AVE AVE # OF TOTAL # IP REST Games IP IP 3 Traditional Starters 4.66 5.6 33 153.95 461.84 4 Hybrid 3.33 4.33 43 142.27 569.10 3 2 IP Specialist 1.66 2.66 70 115.45 346.35 3 1 IP Specialist 0.9 2.2 84 75.68 227.05 13 1604.34

They are going to add a SS so that gets you to 22 and 17? They have Kepler and Celestino to cover center id needed. They have Celestino / Cave / Larnach and Gordon for corner ofers. 3 deep at catcher. Several options for 1st 2nd and 3rd. SS is the one lean position. Obviously, they could use Gordon as a back-up. I guess if they lose whoever the sign and Gordon they would have to go to Palacios or use Polanco at SS.

It's hard to believe they added velocity just like that. Could be a big jump in hos ceiling, especially given his best pitch is a change-up. He would have Johan like velocity difference between the two. I am going to be watch a lot of Milb games this year.

It has happened often to varying degrees. Charlie Morton signed with the Rays and then Atlanta to be near home. Madison Bumgarner wanted to have a horse ranch and so on. It was reported that Bumgarner had higher offers and I would guess Morton could have dome better elsewhere too. Maybe they just knew his preference was not Minnesota and determined he was unlikely to sign an extension. For all we know, they approached him with an extension before trading him.

They were so desperate that they won 101 games that year. Placing this much weight on the immediate term is a sure fire way to insure failure in the long-term. The net gain of having Pressly in 2019 most likely would have been they win 102 or103 instead 101. His presence would have meant nothing in the post season given how that turned out. Trading 4 years of Alcala and 6 of Celestino for an extra game or two in 2019 would be horrendous asset management.

The first part is obvious. You can't claim to want better competitive balance when you ask for a big increase in the CBT and less revenue sharing. It's insulting they try to tell us they are concerned about competitive integrity. If the owners wanted to "pay the least amount they can", what would stop them from spending less under the old agreement or the terms being demanded by players?

Obviously, they don’t all work out. The question is not do they all work out. The question is would insisting these teams keep these players and maintain a higher payroll profile help or hinder them in building a contender? These teams are mediocre with no chance of ever contending unless they get an influx of talent and rebuild. The Marlins were simply poorly run. Let’s not forget they traded Realmuto for Sixto Sanchez and Intl bonus money. I guess the jury is out but the point is that was a better plan than keeping Realmuto and still being under 500. Oakland got Semien and Bassit for Samardzija. Mariners got Kelenic in the Cano / Diaz trade. Cleveland Traded Cliff Lee for Carlos Carrasco Cleveland also got Kluber for Westbrook. They also got Bauer for Sipp. Sipp was not great but he was a 4yr establish player. Atlanta got Max Fried for Justin Upton. They are not stars but contributors. Of course, they got Ynoa from us for Garcia. Let’s not forget the Padres got Tatis for Sheilds. Would teams in the Padres position be better of if the Padres had kept Shields to meet a payroll floor? Would their fans be better off. What did fans here want when the Twins season was lost? Most of us wanted players that could be part of the solution to get playing time so why do we want to force a different approach? There are many others examples throughout history. It’s clear moving veterans has helped teams rebuild. Their alternative was most likely to remain a poor team. So, would we really be improving the level of competition by enforcing a floor? Honest question because it appears to me a salary floor would make really bad teams a little less terrible but hinder them in building an actual contender.

That's probably the real reason it to 43 days.

You are changing the starting point. They had an agreement. That’s the starting point by which to gauge which party was unwilling. Let's not change topics. You asserted the lockout demonstrated unwillingness on the owner's part. I don't believe the lockout has absolutely nothing to do with why the parties have not agreed. They have not agreed because the players have held very firm on three demands that would make the current problem with parity worse. Would you really argue that shorter control, less revenue sharing and a substantial increase in the CBT won’t contribute to even greater competitive imbalance? It would be just great if someone other than me was actually willing to discuss this issue because it is the real issue here. We simply can’t blame anything else unless you can reasonably refute these demands would not further disparity. More importantly, why would the fans of any team outside the top 5 or 6 in revenue want the owners to accept these demands? Explain to me how these demands would not be bad for two-thirds of league, including the MN Twins?

I can see why you might come to this conclusion. However, which party is unwilling? The league has made an offer which demonstrates willingness in a very certain and specific way. It is the players who are unwilling. They rejected that offer which demonstrates clearly that they are the unwilling party. Are you really suggesting the players would be more willing if they were not locked out?

What will ending the lockout change in terms of the two sides coming to agreement or even the process itself?

40% of baseball revenue is still generated in stadium and only football generates more revenue. If by collectively you mean that all these other sports combined generate more revenue ... I would hope so. MLB needs to adapt a new model for TV rights. It's an absolute cluster %@$%. That's not easy given there are many long-term agreements in place. They would need to adopt a model that would allow them to eventually sell broadcast/streaming rights with minimal restriction. For example, anyone should be able to buy a season ticket to stream the games if they don't already get coverage via another subscription. There is just no reason anyone on the planet should not be able to get a package at a reasonable price.

I see the potential for a few problems with a floor which is why I don't see an easy fix. They would have to find a way to prevent teams from just taking on bad contracts and I don't see a way to get that done. Teams would still be bad but now the top revenue teams can dump bad contracts. Anything is possible but I have not come up with a way to prevent it. The odd truth is that the rate of failure of these big contracts that are 100% or nearly 100% guaranteed has moderated the advantage of top revenue teams. Providing a way out would probably further the competitive imbalance. Then, we have the problem of revenue variance between teams receiving revenue sharing. If the amount is the same for all teams, it we be very unfair to the teams at the very bottom in terms of revenue. We also have to need to assess will this actually be beneficial. If the only goal would be to get them to spend more money. That goal would definitely be met. Would it be effective or counterproductive in terms of small ,market teams building a true contender. The proven path for those teams has been to trade their top players when going into a rebuild in order to bring in new talent. For example, when the Royals trade Grienke they received Cane and Escobar who were pivotal in their playoff run. The White Sox trade Sale and Eaton which got them Moncada / Kopech / Gioliti / Dunning. Are we going to retard these teams ability to build a contender for the sake a making them a little better (maybe) while they are rebuilding? I favor a system that would distribute revenue sharing based on payroll spending. That eliminates the potential problem listed above, It would also provide more funding to low revenue team when they are in a competitive window and willing to spend. This would close the gap (slightly) between top and bottom spending.

Did you mean to say the players would never go for a hard cap? I would think all of the teams outside the top half dozen would like a hard cap. The players have been stringently against any form of capping the amount paid in salary. I think a hard cap would be great but the players would scream bloody murder. What would an easy fix for a salary floor look like? Would it be a hard floor or a soft floor? It would have to account the significant swings in revenue when a team is competitive vs not so competitive. It would also need to address the significant revenue differential between the lowest revenue teams receiving revenue sharing and highest revenue teams receiving revenue sharing. In other words, a set amount would not work. Any system would need to address the variability between season and relative team revenue.

Can he be effective in a 2-3 inning role is much more important than if he starts the game or comes in at some later point IMO. All teams are struggling to have enough pitching resource to cover innings. As some others have said, it would be a win if the Twins could find a way to get effective innings out of Jax and anyone else.

Both sides will be staring at financial loss. As I see it, the owners are not budging on the number of years of control and revenue sharing because they know it would be very bad for the game. The age based concession on control is more than I expected. I like it because it helps the middle or even bottom tier free agents. If the players don't change their demands we are going to have a short season or no season at all. The CBT level is also a problem. There are only a few teams willing to spend at this level now. Raising it to the degree demand by the union would add to the already substantial advantage held by a handful of teams. The other owners are not going to extend that advantage. I spent most of my professional life negotiating contracts. Standing hard on terms and conditions the other party is surely not going to accept is idiotic. The other side walks away when that's an option. Given it's not an option here the result is likely no baseball until those demands change. Am I right in assuming the league could bring in replacement players? Obviously revenue would be way down but team expenses would also go down by $100M+ on average.