Major League Ready

Actually, my position had has little to do with actual salaries although I have been a proponent of substantial increases in minimum salary. Owners always hold the ultimate control over salary levels so it would remain to be seen if any of these demands would actually raise salaries. If owners are anywhere near as focused on net profit as many claim they would simply reduce spending to compensate. My position has been very consistent the primary hold up to this point have been the demands that further erode parity. (large increase in CBT threshold, lower revenue sharing, and shorter team control) Team control has been partially dropped. The MLBPA slipped in a full year of service time for top rookies into a different demand. You would expect the sheer magnitude of the ask on the bonus of $100M is going to be a problem. That demand for that group of players is already a 35% raise plus the $100M bonus pool for a handful of top players in that group of players. Of course, those are the same players that will be the most apt to get 9 figure contracts. How many players will be prearb (300 guess) so the raise for them which is 35% would be about $60M. The bonus for a handful would be $100M. Sure seems like Boras influence to me, If there is drum banging, it's at the premise players income has not grown adequately. The sustained increases are literally unprecedented in any industry. No other employee group has sustained this level of increase for 50 years or 10 years for that matter.

I have no problem with what has gone on. I think it would be great if ticket and streaming prices were cut and both players and owners made half of what they are now. I am simply trying to balance the conversation with an accurate account of the facts or for that matter an acknowledgement of the facts This started with the OP who suggested players are just trying to keep up with inflation. Anyone familiar with how these measures are normally used and also familiar with the sustained increases in player salaries sees the subset of the population that has literally outpaced the entire working population by a wide margin. The point about franchise value was made by someone else. While they make a very good point, virtually every fan who makes this point fails to consider that player salaries have grown 5X the rate of franchise value which is why I pointed out both sides are extremely fortunate. Perhaps the most salient point is that only one side is not satisfied with their bounty and refuses to go on without an increase in compensation.

The results / history is clear that what has resulted is 90 percent of the WS teams have had above average revenue. Just to be clear, are you actually suggesting that any team could spend like the Yankees / Dodgers?

Making the playoffs is not the best measure of competitive balance. Are Twins fans happy with getting to the playoffs? The measure should be the relative ability to get to the WS or win the WS. 20 of the 22 National League teams and 18 of 22 American League teams to reach the WS in the 2000s have been above average revenue teams. Is that parity? To suggest the ability to spend an incremental $80or $100M on players is not an advantage defies every form of logic. Why would the Yankees or Dodgers spend an extra hundred million more than the Rays if it was not advantageous? I mean really, do we need to debate it's an advantage to be able to sign 3 elite players and have the budget of lower revenue teams left over?

Both sides have been incredibly fortunate and you are correct that the value of the Minnesota Twins is 30X what it was in 1970. We should also point out that Player salaries have increased by 136X of 1970 salaries. In other words, salaries have increased almost 5x compared to team values. Regardless of the exact numbers both sides are incredibly fortunate but only one side is wildly unsatisfied and demand more. It's the same side that said we are unwilling to work for a penny less than 100% during a pandemic and refused to bunch an inch. The owners want expanded playoffs which is good for the game and good for players. The also want the universal DH which is good for the game and good for players. They benefit both sides. The owners have not asked for "more" in the form of non-guaranteed contracts like football or max contract lengths like the NBA. They have not asked to eliminate opt outs. The demand for more and the subsequent threat to the MLB season is a product of players who don't feel the incredible compensation they get for playing a game is adequate and are demanding more.

We will have to see if any reliable account of the facts are made public. I seriously doubt that is this is purely about money. If the owners were only concerned about the bottom line what would stop them from simply reducing their player payroll? Literally none of the proposed terms would prevent owners from reducing payroll if that was their ultimate goal. These are very accomplished people. I believe they understand the level of parity is dangerously out of whack and they are unwilling to accept anything that promotes the further erosion of parity. The way teams were spending before the lock-out certainly does not indicate an unwillingness to spend.

Where are the players who don't think $100M and $200M and $300M contracts are not adequate compensation for playing a game? I want baseball too but I do not want the league accepting terms that further erodes the current unacceptable lack of parity.

The cumulative rate rate of inflation over the past 50 years is a little less than 7X. Average household income in the US over the past 50 years is almost identical to the rate of inflation. In 1970, ave household income was $9.870 and in 2020 it was 67,521 or just a touch under 7X what it was in 1970. Average baseball salaries were $29,303. Had they grown at the rate of inflation or the same rate as US income, the average player would be earning a little under $200K. Had US household income grown at the same rate as players, the average household income would be $1,350,000. Do you really want to take the position that players have not grown adequately when measured against the adjusted rate of inflation? Is there a group of employees anywhere in the world that have seen a greater rate of income growth than MLB and NFL players?

I would hope the twins would also trade him for a good young SS.

I would go through the list of pitchers posters here have insisted we should sign at all costs where the contracts would have started at age 30 or beyond and span 4-6 years but it would be a fair amount of work to come up with that laundry list. Now, we should not care about keeping a pitcher in the age 31 season. Darvish signed a 6 year deal starting his age 31 season. Bumgarner signed for 5 years starting his age 30 season and the list of examples is very long. Berrios has a contract starting at age 28 but that contract goes 4 seasons past his age 30 but that's good but keeping a different player past age 30 is bad? It's really hard to follow the logic here.

Changing the rule would assure small and mid market teams lose top players to the top 10 markets a year earlier. Definitely good for the players and definitely good for those top revenue markets. Bad for parity. Bad for the game and definitely bad for the other 20 markets and the fans of those teams. Every team has the option to ignore the year of service time. When they elect to keep a player in the minors the 1st 6 weeks because the short-term gain is not worth the long-term loss. How would this be a good outcome?

It just perplexes me that a MLB player can't bunt with the entire left side of the infield open. The shifts on him have been extreme for 3 years so he has had plenty of time to work on it. Rod Carew would have batted 900 against that shift..

Here is an interesting development. MLB has asked for a federal mediator. Federal Mediator

The poll on MLB rumors (for what it's worth) only has 15% believing he gets less than $100M. 52% believe he will get $140M or more. My guess is 5/120 or 6/130. Trevor Story Contract

Had you taken this stance I would not have asked if you realized he had not played in two years. However, you are now changing your statement. Originally, you said "I would bring him up give him 2022 and stop the if's/guessing." That's a pretty adamant stance. Giving him a year is entirely different. I am confused on your position.

You do realize he has not played in 2 years, right?

Good point Doc. I love watching this young man behind the plate. I will be pulling for him.

Apparently you are assuming that trading prospects for major leaguers is a better strategy for building a playoff team / contender than trading established players for prospects. If you look back at how playoff teams acquired the players on their roster you will find players that were traded for as prospects by FAR exceed trades for established players. It's not even remotely close, especially among below average revenue teams. Don't believe me? Pick a few playoff teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Go to Fangraphs and select that team and select the given year. Now look at how their top players by WAR were acquired. Cleveland and Tampa will stand out. They have acquired a lot of good players as prospects. You will have a very different point of view if you are willing to go through this exercise and let the facts speak for themselves.

The Rays have done a great job for sure. However, the twins most recent deal with them looks pretty good at the moment. We got Joe Ryan and Drew Strotman for 2 months of Nelson Cruz. His wRC+ of 96 was 12th on the Ray's team forthose 2 months. The Rays lost their division series 3-1. IDK what Ryan and Strotman will contribute but I would bet 5 years from now we will see this trade as a great deal for the Twins.

Relying on not one but two SPs coming off TJ surgery does not seem like a good idea.

I hated the Sabato pick too but I have no problem with the Lewis pick. Kyle Wright is 26 and has three shots at the ML level where he has been below replacement. Obviously, he could still be good but he is not a shining example of what could have been. Obviously, Greene was a high ceiling guy with all the risk associated with HS pitchers. I do not have any problem with them not going that route at 1/1. Greene is only 22 but he was mediocre at AAA. It's a little early to declare him the alternative we should have taken just yet. Gore and McKay also have question marks so I am going to need a couple more years to make an informed conclusion about what we should have done. That one I really dislike was Cavaco. Just too much of a wild card. Stott or Carroll sure seemed like the right choice then and now.

How would sharing financial resolve the problem created by the demand to lower revenue sharing or increase the CBT threshold? The relative profitability of the league would not change the fact that an increase of the CBT threshold or the lowering or revenue sharing will ABSOLUTELY for certain increase the level of competitive disparity that exists today?

What would it mean to give up on him? I guess giving up would mean to cut him or trade. Obviously, option 1 is not happening and what would be the point of selling this low? Hope like hell the upward trend continues. Then, when the DH becomes a permanent part of the landscape he would be a good trade piece or perhaps or DH for us at some point post Sano / Donaldson.

I agree Doc. They are not going to be inclined to trade short-term assets for long-term assets. However, I could see it happening if the acquiring team was willing to pay enough for Arraez or Kepler or a pitching prospect they value far less than the acquiring team. Miami actually seems like the most likely trade partner. Not because they necessarily want the assets we have to trade but they are in the unique position of being very deep in pitching and very thin on offense.