Major League Ready

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.

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.