Major League Ready

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.

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.