Major League Ready

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.

They are already sharing revenue so the sharing of information is likely not the hold-up. The revenue differential top to bottom is nearly 3:1. It would take a massive redistribution of revenue to really level the playing field. Put yourself in their position. If you owned the Yankees, Dodgers or any other top 6-7 team in revenue, would you not only give up your competitive advantage and in the process take an enormous hit to the valuation of your business? Anyone who has every owned a business would give a resounding no to this question. How do you think the players would react to the suggestion top paid players share their income with the lowest paid players? This is all purely speculative anyway. There are not any ideal solutions on the table. The options we do have on the table are bad for parity and bad for the game. Are you OK with making it worse because we don't have an option that will make it better?

I agree on that too. The point is the utopic options are not realistic. There is a set of terms and conditions being negotiated and unfortunately other alternatives are not relevant. Do you believe that the specific terms I keep referencing would or would not make our problem with parity worse?

I agree that what would be ideal in regard to improving competitive balance and that is not in the language of the current or the projected CBAs. We can't change that reality. What awaits us as fans is a the set of conditions being negotiated. So, what's the best alternative among the imperfect options before us ? We should accept the situation getting worse over the status quo. Some here absolutely refuse to acknowledge the existence of the demands that would further the disparity. It's brutally obvious the demands for service time / revenue sharing and CBT would further the disparity. I can't get anyone to answer the question why we would want the owners to accept conditions that further erode parity. If the owners are as greedy as many suggest, why would a change in any of these terms impact how much they spend on players? If they budget today for a bottom line of X percent, they can budget the exact same way under a new CBA granting the players demands. What would change for sure, is the top tier free agents will go to the highest revenue teams a year earlier and small market teams will have even less capacity to keep players. People bitch constantly here about this fact and then promote terms that would exacerbate the problem. I have one other question not for you but in general. What is the benefit to fans of players making more money? Where do the owners get the money they pay them? From us of course. You want to really improve the future of the game. Pay players half what they are making now and give free streaming to every fan. Reduce ticket prices and institute a requirement every stadium have an affordable / relatively healthy meal option for families.

The wouldn't be. They would be using the 82 IPs he had in recognizing he was much better the first time through the order. Still a small sample size but they have three options. 1) Conclude he is not an adequate starting pitcher and cut him. 2) Keep starting him and hope for a different result. 3) Look at the information Cody provided and conclude giving him a shot in the BP might be the smartest play. Which option makes the most sense to you? I guess you could add a 4th option to trade him.

The relative amount of time is not the issue. In listening to the national radio shows, the union will not budge on the 3 items, Years of control, the competitive balance tax threshold, and reducing revenue sharing. These three things expand the competitive disparity that already threatens the future of the league. The owners are not going to cave on demands that are sure to have a long-term detrimental affect on the game/league. That's why we are at an impasse not because it took longer to respond than people who have never participated in this type of process think it should take, I put 90% of the blame on players for insisting on terms that would unquestionably further the already unacceptable level of competitive disparity. Why would you as a Twins fan want the owners to accept terms that would make it even more difficult for our team to compete. It would be extremely unfair to the fans of teams in the bottom 1/3 based on revenue.

Great information Cody. Quite a few people have suggested he might be just fine in the BP and you have demonstrated why they might be right. It would be quite a boost if he was able to maintain this level of performance the 1st time through a lineup in two inning stints out of the BP. I have often wondered why the more effective RPs are not used in 2 innings stints. They should still be able to pitch every 3rd day which would be good for 100+ innings. It is after all about covering the innings with effective pitchers.

I have never been involved in this specific type of proposal so I would not know what is required just as I would not know how long it takes to prepare to prosecute a murder. Never done that before either. Baseball fans make a lot of judgements of things of which they have never actually done. My teams have put together many proposals in the 100-500M range. Those took a lot longer than 43 days. It's not as if you sit down and pound out a document. There is a lot of research and validation done.

There are three things being negotiated that will have any impact on the game. The universal DH and expanded playoffs would have an impact and both parties want them regardless of negotiating position. The owners have also proposed a draft lottery which I doubt will have much impact but it's a net gain. Most of the things causing the downward trend are not part of this negotiation which is why I keep trying to focus this discussion the conditions actually being negotiated. Other than the issues above, none of the issues causing this downward trajectory you keep talking about are part of the negotiations. At least not directly. Competitive parity is being talked about by the players but they are talking out both sides of their mouth. The three things they are demanding are bad for the game and that's not going to change because the popular position is to ignore their demands with expand competitive disparity. The say they are concerned about parity but the three demands they are stuck on are unquestionably bad for the game. Once again, nobody here is willing to acknowledge this reality. Just more posts talking around the specific influence of their demands with general comments instead of addressing each of the demands and the impact they would have on the game.

Actually, I don't see much "hashing out of anything. Just general statement like this one. I said players are demanding changes that would hurt the game because they feel they are not getting enough? You replied that we could replace players and owners in that sentence. When pushed for specifics you reply they want the status quo. I agree but that obviously means they are not demanding changes that are bad for the game. They don't have any demands. Therefore, the options we can evaluate is the status quo or what the players are demanding. What the players are demanding is obviously bad for the game and a whole lot of people want to ignore the specifics and insist it's a matter of mutual greed or the owners fault for not giving the players what they want. Why should we want more competitive disparity? Does anyone really want to argue the things the player's are arguing for would not expand the competitive advantage between the top and bottom the league in terms of revenue? Does anyone want to argue reducing control would not put top free agents in the highest revenue markets a year earlier?

You conveniently left out most of my quote. We are not having a discussion. You are not willing to address the issues directly. Prove you position instead of insisting I could only come to these conclusions via bias. The players have 3 demands I have cited as the problem. The are as follows. All I have asked is for someone to tell me the these demands would not expand the currently level of disparity which is obviously bad for the game. So do that instead of bitching about my bias. Will a significantly higher competitive balance expand the competitive disparity between top and bottom revenue teams. The answer is obviously yes so how is this not bad for the game? Who does it benefit. A handful of top revenue teams and top free agents. Do we even have to discuss the merit of reducing revenue sharing? Does it get any more obvious that this would further competitive disparity. Shortening the length of control helps two small groups. The largest revenue markets will get top free agents a year earlier. How is this beneficial to the game and how is it not a slap in the fact to small and mid market teams. Edit: This invitation to explain how these three demands are not bad for teams with below average revenue / the game and MN Twins fans is extended to anyone here. Alternatively, an explanation as to why we should want the owners to cave to these demands in spite of it being bad for the game is also welcome. Without these explanations to continue to blame the owners is head in the sand logic.

What are the owners asking for that would be bad for the game? Please be specific. There is a hole lot of generalities being thrown around on this subject without any validation.

True. How does that change the fact these extremely fortunate players are demanding changes that would hurt the game because they feel they are not getting enough? Are they extremely well compensated or not. Would the demands I outlined hurt the game or not? We are probably going to miss part of the season because they don't feel they are adequately compensated which I find absurd. Especially when the top guys are getting paid a ton and they put no focus on taking care of the other 3/4 of the players. This reeks of Boras influencing what's good for him and his clients with little regard for the game. Boras influence or not, explain to my a Twins fan should support what they are demanding.

By your logic, two years after the Padres traded for Tatis (mid 2018) that was a bad trade because he was still a year away from any contribution at the MLB level.. Pressly / Berrios and countless other players don't produce much early in their careers. You are correct in that Alcala has not produced much yet. Therefore, the value of the trade is a matter of what will he produces over the next 4 years. That's why it's a forecasted value. We can discuss the actual outcome in 4 years. Right now we are projecting a value based on an opinion of how he will perform. If we compare two investments. One returns 500 dollars in year 1 and nothing thereafter. The other returns nothing in years 1-4 and then 300, 400, 400, and 500. Are we correct to call investment number 2 inferior in year 4? We might assume it's inferior based on a bad forecast but it's obviously the better investment.

Actually, none of this makes sense. Returns can’t be measured until the end of the payout period which is 4 years from now for Alcala and 6 or 7 years for Celestino. The fact that it has not paid out up to this point has little relevance. That’s how it works when you trade for future assets. They pay out in a different (later) time frame. If I buy stock in a start-up that does not payout for 5 years and that stock becomes Amazon, is it a bad invest in year 4? Oakland and Tampa developed practices based on the principles of asset management a long time ago because it was a necessity for them. A lot of the other teams have learned or are learning these principles as well which is why we have seen a greater reluctance to give up top prospects over the past 5-10 years. Evaluating this trade today would be the product of a forecast. We have a reasonable idea of what to expect so it’s reasonable to forecast the result. However, player expectations vary fairly widely. My forecast (expectation) of Alcala is that he be at least a reliable back of the BP arm and potentially a dominant closer at best. Therefore, I see it as 4 years of an 8th inning guy for specifically Pressly in 2019 is still a very good trade. If Alcala reaches the ceiling I believe he possess, it’s a great trade for the Twins and it worked out for Houston too. If Celestino is a 4th OFer, that a decent bonus. It takes a 26 man roster in today’s MLB so it does not makes sense IMO to marginalize the value of a good role player.

I am not a professional baseball talent evaluator. Alcala appears to have the raw stuff to be a dominant RP to me. If you are a professional evaluator of MLB talent then perhaps my argument is weak. If you want to compare credentials on providing strategy consultation to organization generating 9 or 10 figures in revenue, I can hold my own there and I don't need your counsel on what is or is not a strategic. Your desire to ignore how Tampa/Oakland have built contenders ad nauseam does not diminish the relative merit of the strategies. The practices that have been successful for small and mid market teams are abundantly clear if you actually take the time to study their construction instead of assuming a position and defending it without actual proof of concept.

Pressley amassed less than 2 WAR in his 1st 5 seasons. Wade Davis / Glenn Perkins were failed starter. There are many many examples of RPs that became dominant after modest results their 1st 2-3 years. The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense. Why is the Twins lack of offensive performance relevant to the value of keeping Pressly for 2019. They won a 100 games so that was hardly a problem. The argument would have to be he would have made a difference in a playoff series where they got blown out in every game. To suggest Pressly would have made the difference is absurd. Some try to make a caser they could have possibly had home field advantage. They got blown out at home too. So, if his presence would not have a meaningful difference in the post season or the regular season, what's the point? You are also arguing that Oakland and Tampa's have had success with these types of trades but this trade can't be successful because MN has not executed these types of trades in the past. You do realize that makes absolutely no sense.

While Alcala is no Josh Hader, my hope is that Alcala is able to take on that type of role and gives us 80IP/year. I would take a reasonable level of effectiveness in such a role for 4 years over having Pressley in 2019 in a heartbeat. If Celestino can be a decent 4th OFer for 6 years that's just a bonus. I also think we are going to see a lot of non traditional roles. What if Alcala becomes a 3-4 inning guy and gives us 100-120 IP/year? Perhaps he transitions to that role and then a traditional SP role. I could be wrong but I think this will be a major trend through MLB in the next few years.

It’s not as if the players are asking for a raise of X and that raise will assuredly cost the owners X or something close to it. If the owner are all about greed what’s to stop them from spending the exact amount they are today even if they gave into all of the players demands? Increasing the luxury tax impacts just a handful of teams. That would in all likelihood result in 2-3 or maybe 4 teams in any given season increasing the amount they spend. It would have zero impact on the financials of roughly 25-27 teams. So, it’s safe to say greed among owners is NOT holding up an agreement where this item is concerned. Reducing revenue sharing would be a financial hit to the smallest teams if they continued to spend at current levels. Of course, that’s not what would happen. They would spend less. They would be less capable of retaining players like Tampa just did with Tatis or Longoria a few years ago. Braun with Milwaukee, etc. I doubt greed had as much to do with their rejection of this demand as much as the impact on competitive balance. Of course, that ultimately is a means to protect revenue but the implications are significantly different. Reducing team control also is an item that would have little financial impact on most teams. The result would be top FAs going to the highest revenue teams a year earlier. The impact would be proportional to revenue level. The further down the revenue chain the more likely the team would be to lose players to the top revenue teams. These three demands are the core of the player’s demands. Alone they are problematic. Their combined affect would make it even harder for small and mid market teams to retain players or compete in general. They only benefit a handful of teams and most likely top tier free agents while hurting the rest of the league and their fans. Make no mistake, we don’t have baseball because the player’s are demanding things that are bad for the game. Each generation of player is far more fortunate than the previous. What they should be focused on are changes that bring back more excitement to the game or benefit competitive balance and/or revenue generation. It would be nice if they focused on their entire constituency and spreading the wealth a little. That’s most definitely not their focus. It sure looks like Boras is orchestrating what's best for Boras corp with little concern for the game.

Who is to say Alcala won't become dominant? He has the raw stuff and he was dominant the end of last season. For that matter it's not out of the question that he be transitioned back to starting. There is also a good chance we are going to see a lot of hybrid (2-4 inning) guys going forward across the league. It's funny we don't recognize Pressley had one more year of control. It's convenient to assume we would have unlocked his potential and we can't assume assume he would have stayed had the Twins been able to unlock his potential. It's funny we lose sight of the fact Oakland and Tampa have had enormous success making trades like this one. There are countless other examples as well. It's funny people don't recognize we won 100 games the year after he left and we are also ignoring his presence was not going to change that our offence did not show up in that playoff series. While Pressley was great, his absence made little impact for the year and two months we lost him. Before weu talk about bell-curves and analytics we should validate assumptions because the assumptions he would have done the same thing here and then signed an extension is not a valid assumption.

I think Arraez gets traded but it could be anytime between this off-season and the 2024 deadline as he is under team control through 2025. Martin's development and his knees probably play the largest roles in the if and when. If Martin is not a SS, there is a good chance he plays the same role with better defensive ability, better speed, and probably more power. If Martin does not move into that role, Spenser Steer is also better suited for a utility role. Eduardo Julien could also be a better offensive player with similar defensive capability. If he is the successor we might be out to mid 2023 or 2024.

We are very short at SS but that's not a role Arraez would play. With Arraez we should be asking what we have in the pipeline for 2B or a utility role. We have a few good candidates for those roles. Martin would offer more speed and more pop with equivalent OB skills. Julien and Steer offer way more power and Julien might have the same type of OB skills. Steer has more speed and is better better defensively. He might even be a ok to fill in at SS now and then. Miranda could also operate in a utility role. There is just no good reason to extend Arraez right now. Plus, I am not a fan of extending a player and trading them within a year or two. Those players take these deals because they want to remain with the team and that does not play well when the next extension candidate comes along. You make a good point about SS, We are deep in pitching prospects. One of the reasons to wait a year to determine what to do with Arraez is to figure out if Martin or Lewis can stick at SS. Another year should bring more clarity to that question. If not, perhaps Arraez could be traded for a SS.

I was not aware he was expected to have TJ. Do you have a link you can share?

According to Spotrac the Dodgers signed 29. No amounts were listed. 20 were from Venezuela. They only have 9 listed for the Rays.

You are contradicting how literally every successful mid and small market team is built. Take a look at how Oakland, Tampa, and Cleveland built successful teams. The approach you advocate is a good way to sustain mediocrity or worse and occasional bump up against the fringe of contention.