Major League Ready

I looked at this a couple years ago. Definitely not one $4M guy. The $1-1.5M dollar guys have done as well or better than the $3M+ guys. My guess is forty 100K guys would net better odds too but that would take some effort to figure out. The approach they are taking this year is basically 1/2 on more modestly price premium guys and the rest spread out among many players seems like a pretty ideal compromise..

The issue is not your analogy. The issue is how you have defined the problem. The Twins need to build an entire staff including a couple front of the rotation types if we are to have a reasonable shot at reaching the playoffs and then having a shot at post season success. Signing 3 back of the rotation SPs when you don’t have any front of the rotation SPs is a really bad plan. One, we will be bad. Two, we will assure this mediocrity continues by minimizing the opportunity to develop the numerous pitching prospects that are ready or will be throughout the course of 2022.

Sounds about right. They have lots of time to trade him. If they wait Donaldson might end up being moved and they get more time to evaluate Miranda/Martin & Lewis. I expect they wouldn't move him unless they really liked the return.

I didn't ask for opinions on specific changes, I asked if they needed to be part of the CBA. Viewership is declining. There are a plethora of issues that need to be addressed. I am wondering which issues would be part of a CBA.

Interesting take you have. I guess I missed the part where owners are asking for "more money" Their one ask is for a couple more playoff teams. 50% of the gate goes to players. Given they spend 85-90% of revenue on operations and players salaries, where do you suppose most of the additional revenue will go? Operating costs are not going up as a result of adding more playoff teams. Not everyone would agree but the year we had expanded playoffs kept a lot more fans engaged. The one thing they asked for is good for the players and the game. Players on the other hand, have asked for less revenue sharing and a significantly higher competitive balance threshold. They are also insistent upon reducing the length of control. All three bad for the game. The owners have offered an aged based system of control that would be beneficial to players who don't get to free agency at an age where they can really cash in. I don't know how anyone can suggest the reason we are in this position is because players want more. If the players were willing to extend the status quo we would be gearing up for spring training. This is 100% about the players getting more and I would like to see that in years 1-3 but the MLBPA has put no emphasis on these players and have been fixated and unwilling to move off the 3 primary demands listed above. The aged based free agency is a nice add too.

I have yet to meet a business owner or senior executive in the private sector that was not concerned about revenue. Are changes like banning shifts / pitch clock or electronic strike zone part of the CBA?

I posted this idea in a different thread. The goal would be to distribute more of the revenue sharing pie to teams receiving revenue sharing based on how much they spend more on payroll. Instead of distributing it to teams that are not spending it on players, distribute a greater portion to teams that are spending. If teams were to get more revenue sharing if they spent it, you have to believe they would spend more. This would put lower revenue teams in a better competitive position. This would be good for the game, the fans, and of course the players.

Have to agree. It has been very evident from the start of this process and long before that the MLBPA is not representing their majority of players. They are fixated on terms and conditions that favor a relatively small portion of their members. Does anyone believe their motivation for decreasing revenue sharing by $100M was about competitive integrity? The intent of the combination of reduced revenue sharing and increased CBT is about as simple as it gets. Give the big market teams $100M of revenue sharing back and raise the competitive balance tax enough so that they will assuredly spend the entire $100M where small market teams will not. Their actions suggest they don’t care a bit about competitive balance. Yet, a lot of people buying this load of crap. Here’s a newsflash… That subset of players we would consider starters (not stars) that reach free agency before age 30 are doing phenomenally well. The players are either victim of misguided leadership or they all are hoping one day they will earn land a contract that provides generation wealth and they are willing to go along with practices that are very focused on the top 10-20% of players. I guess they can take that chance. Nick Punto made $23M over his career and an equivalent player starting their career now would make $30M. That player can retire in their mid 30s, buy a 2 million dollar home and a $10M of rental property, pay someone to manage it and take home $600K/year plus their pension and medical is paid for life. If that player got a nice draft bonus they can buy a private plane and a nice summer home too. They should focus on some type of policy to curtail service time manipulation, raising compensation in years 1-3 as much as possible and granting free agency based on age or the current system, whichever comes first. If they were really smart they would also change the distribution of revenue sharing to include a component based on player payroll. Adding the DH and a couple playoff teams would also be financial gains. Add them all together and their already extremely fortunate position gets even better.

If that's all he would bring, I agree. However, if he is good as we all think, why wouldn't he bring back a Jordan Balazovic type SP prospect or a 50 or 55FV type SS prospect? If we really think Lewis of Martin will stick, the focus should be pitching but I just don't see justification for any deep confidence one of those guys is going to be our SS for 6-10 years. While I don't see anyone ready to take his place opening day, we have several guys that could be even better in that utility role. Martin / Miranda / Julien or even Lewis if he does not stick at SS.

Arraez was 142nd among position players in Fwar last year. Let's not get too carried away with his trade value or any suggestion that he could not be replaced.

No. They are not going to trade Arraez and add prospects so that they can be a 500 team this year. The entire premise and line of reasoning revolves around the theory they must go for it this year when all indications are they are playing the long game. My guess is the only way they trade Arraez is for a ML ready or close to ready SS or a high ceiling pitching prospect.

St. Louis let Pujlos walk which was a great decision. I am not suggesting Berrios is going to be dead weight like Pujlos was for the last 5 years but letting a player go is not necessary inconsistent with the approach you are advocating. It aids in the development of the steady stream of young talent you reference.

Sounds about right to me other than I don’t think the union would cave quickly even if replacement players were brought in. I have wondered about the point you made regarding would the owners want to the union to go away and I also contemplated would the game we be better off. I am not a lawyer either but the first question is what would prohibit the league from adopting a set of guidelines similar to the CBA provided those guidelines did not violate anti-trust guidelines. If the exact same agreement was used without a union in place would it all the sudden become illegal? IDK but you would think the teams could agree to operate as they have under a CBA. Then, again, I am not a lawyer and even if I were I doubt this could be answered with certainty. Hopefully we never have a covid situation again but that situation illustrated the added complexity in resolving problems when a union is involved. For example, had there been no union, the teams could have offered two-thirds pay for anyone that wanted to play. Anyone who did not want to work for 2/3 pay could have sat out the season and we would have had 100 or 120 games. The game faces other challenges that will require change. Would it be easier to resolve without the players holding up changes as a bargaining chip. There is also the matter of the union pressing hard for some things that would not be good for the game. We are in this situation because the owners are only willing to reduce team control after a certain age. The demands to eliminate revenue sharing while at the same time significantly increasing the luxury tax threshold. There is no way around it, these three things would be bad for at least half of the teams and bad for baseball in general. Therefore, under the assumption teams could and would form an agreement very similar to the CBA, I don’t see why they would be concerned about the union going away.

It's crazy that 8 guys are interchangeable in terms of making a case for their rank in the organization but I have to agree. I was already really excited to watch Milb baseball this year and this series has elevated my interest. Thanks Seth! Great series. In terms of ceiling I am thinking Duran / Canterino / Balazovic / Ryan but they would be reversed in terms of probability of reaching their ceiling. Does this seem accurate in your opinion?

This would be great. It's hard to pull of ML ready pitching with this much control.

Sure makes sense to me. I love Arraez but I would much prefer to keep Polanco. His wRC+ was 19 points higher than Arraez and I fear those knees. The problem I see is that the type of team (contender) that would trade for Arraez is unlikely to trade away an impact SP. They are going to offer prospects. Sure, there are exceptions but how often to Contenders trade good pitching and a rebuilding club is not going to be interested. By the time they are good, Arraez will be approaching free agency.

Balazovic Ryan SWR Winder Canterino I could see the 1st 3 in any order. Winder and Canterino could be reversed too so who knows. I will be interested to see why you rank them where you do. Great series, Seth.

I hear ya ... Some of them you don't think will be much develop a new pitch and all the sudden they are a different pitcher. MacKenzie Gore looked like one of the best prospects in baseball and now his future is questionable. Who knows! I am high on Raya while realizing he has not proven much so far.

I am curious who you mean specifically in the 11-20 group. Enlow (11) and maybe Strotman (15) we view as high ceiling guys, A lot of the other guys seem like they are just showing up as having upside now. .

I wondered where Raya would be ranked. Seems like Berrios is a pretty good comp. He would be a good bet for the Twins pitching prospect that makes the biggest jump in the national rankings this year.

Donaldson has negative value. Sano has no excess value. His 2023 option includes a $2.75M buyout so a team looking to trade would consider his current salary to include that buyout. $12M total. Maeda won't pitch in 2022 and it a FA after 2023. There is a lot of uncertainty the year after TJ so his value is minimal. Rogers salary negates his value but I would think he would still bring back a decent prospect in trade.

I hope not. Seeing Smeltzer would mean they did nothing to improve the rotation after the lockout. If we see him after the first couple months it would also mean that the the plethora of Twins SP prospects with more upside than Smeltzer are still not ready.

I have had basically the same thought about this whole situation. You make a very good point. Owners are not going to spend because the super two rules change or free agency becomes shorter or even as a result of increased minimum salary. They have a high degree of control over the bottom line so long as revenue does not go down which is why I don't agree it's about power. I believe like many others here that the large markets already have an enormous advantage. The owners have offered a reasonable solution to most of the demands. The impasse is shortening, reducing revenue sharing, and the amount of increase to the luxury tax. The players demand would elevate the already large competitive advantage for top revenue market. Eliminate a year of control and the top players in bottom half markets all end up in the top markets a year earlier. Taking away revenue sharing while raising the luxury tax to any significant degree obviously increases the current level of competitive disparity which is already threatening the product on the field. These things together should have any fan of teams in the bottom half of revenue saying hell no.

I was critical of Sano when that not a popular position so I am not a supporter. However, his numbers are above average so it's not like he is a total slug some make him out to be. Career PAs 2778 with a wRC+ of 118 and an OPS of 819. Roasrio has 3242 PAs with a wRC+ of 105 and an OPS of 782. Having said this, my hope for Sano and his future is that he comes to camp in shape, has a great 1st half, and is traded for something of value at the deadline.

Sorry. I assumed you meant major league pitching and we all know what happens when we assume. Pitching would be great but I would be happy with any return regardless of position. An up the middle defender would be good too.