Major League Ready

I think the owners would gladly accept a compensation system in the new CBA that reallocated bonus pool money to Milb salaries. In other words, the new CBA would set salary guidelines that included these funds into Milb salaries. Why would owners care. This would be relatively easy. You have to ask yourself why the emphasis on such a small portion of players. Those bonuses benefit a relatively small portion of players. In this case the system is benefiting the players who will eventually become the highest paid players, At least in theory. Seems like another Boras influence. All they need to do to right this system is pay them when they actually earn it at the MLB level. Playing baseball should not have to be a financial struggle for any Milb players given the amount of money in the game. They could make life much better for Take 80% of the already existing bonus pool and pay it out in salary. That money would fund (roughly) an additional $60K in salary for all players. The goal should be a system that pays $100K at the AAA level. I modeled a system that started at a $1M bonus at 1/1 and decreased by 2% for each pick until it reaches 30K. The end of the 2nd round is $250K and it gets down to $30K after the 6th round. It's really a matter of taking care of everyone or only focusing on top picks. Like I said, seems like another Boras influence. Lety's pay them when they earn it and eliminate financial hardship for all Milb players.

Chief, I have a new found respect. Most people fall into ethnocentric alignment. In other words, they identify with labor before management so they take the players side and ignore the things the players are demanding is bad for parity and bad for the sport. We fund these salaries and you considered what's good for fans. Bravo! Owners are only lookout for their own best interests but their best interests are the interest of the game. The demands made by players indicate they are either clueless as to what's good for the game or they just don't care. While they say they want to get players more in the early part of their career, their proposals focus on things that are good for the highest paid players. Looks like the Boras effect to me. I bet the owners would accept .... Minimum salary of $1M / 1.25M / $1,.5 M for the 1st 3 years. A salary floor where the difference between the floor and minimum is divided among all prearb players. The amount could be a running 3 year average to allow teams to adjust to their build cycles. The 6 year free agent status is something MLB owner should never change for the sake of parity. I thought their proposal on this item was more than I expected. One final note ... I am with you on Milb pay. Quit giving out $7M bonuses to unproven players, They will get it when they prove they are worth it. Take 80% of that bonus bonus money and put it into salaries so that all Milb players make a good living. This practice would add roughly $60K to whatever they are earning now. AAA players would/should make $100K.

The players would never accept a cap and they want to decrease revenue sharing.

Trea Turner / Tim Anderson / Xander Bogaerts / Danby Swanson are all FAs next year. Of course, there are few others but these 4 would be good long-term solutions. We are not getting Turner away from LA so let's call in 3 good options. The best case scenario is Lewis or Martin step up and that money gets allocated to pitching.

History is very clear in that neither strategy is a viable way to build a staff for any team and it's down right incompetent for a team in the bottom 1/3 or revenue to try. There are two potential paths. Trade for SPs as prospects or before they become established or draft and develop them. The one year guys are a way to fill holes. The very top free agents SPs (Scherzer / Greinke) are great. The problem is that there are so very few of them. Plus can we afford to put 29% in one player? (Scherzer / $150M budget) Other than these very select few true elite SPs, the rest of the free agent market collectively is a very poor bet, especially outside the first year. The production is surprising low when you actually go back and chart their production. We can talk about the poor history of developing pitchers all we like. By far the most likely path to success is through developing internal pitching so focusing on less productive strategies never makes sense. I think we are about to see the FO act accordingly. The old regime no doubt failed to develop pitching and we are about to see if the new is any different.

Who are you thinking, Mike? Garver only has two years left but Polanco / Kepler / Buxton / Jeffers have multiple years left, I don't think they can get anything for Donaldson. Sano might bring a half way decent prospect considering the universal; DH is likely. Arreaz has 4 years left but could be traded given out depth at 2B.

My comments were all in the context of what they need to do over the course of this season to have a legit shot at fielding a contender next year. I don't believe and never did believe that was realistic. Anything is possible in baseball but the odds were very much against it. I am not interested in pursuing strategies that just prolong the mediocrity.

I didn't say anything about 1 year contracts. I simply pointed out that the 5 year deals have been horrible outside of the first year and a mixed bag even in the first year. I am not even saying we should not do them ... just that in the Cueto / Zimmerman type cases it hurts the team badly for 3 or 4 years. BTW ... Ray and Gausman were 1 year deals and there have many 1 or 2 year deals (Cruz) that have been fantastic.

I agree Strotman has the best shot of those three. The one I don't know what to make of is Duran. It would not be the end of the world if he ended up being a back of the BP arm but we really need that guy to live up to his potential. What about Canterino? Will we see him at the ML level this year?

They need to come up with a couple BP guys too with Rodgers and Duffey being free agents at the end of the year. They will have the budget to keep them if that makes sense but it also makes sense they try to determine which prospects start and who should be transitioned to the BP. Vallimont and Strotman seemed destined for the BP to me and if Jax has any chance, it seems like it would be out of the BP. Let's hope the pitching prospects stay healthy this year. They have enough guys near ready that it would make sense to give a couple of them a look out of the BP.

How is it ever good to get 5 WAR for $110M? We could have got Robbie Ray for an extra $5M.

Just about everyone here has consider only one possible future state strategy .... contend next year. Do you think it's possible or even probable they looked at what was needed to contend and determined that was not feasible by opening day. None of this is in the least bit surprising if they determined the best course of action was to invest big league innings in their pitching prospects as well as Miranda, Martin, and possibly Lewis.

If we venture back a few years to the last time we had a bunch of SPs get 5 years deals (2016) the results suggest we should at least be aware of the highly volatile production of free agent SPs. David Price 7/217/AAV of #31M – WAR 4.4 / 1.5 / 2.4 / 2.3 / 0 / .7 an average of 1.88 total and 1.38 after the 1st year. Zack Greinke – Has been great. The next 3 SPs in AAV included Johnny Cueto / Jordan Zimmerman, and Jeff Samardzija. Johnny Cueto had a great first year and produced an average of 1 WAR for the final 5 years. Zimmerman produced 4.4 WAR over 4 years. Samardzjia was average in 2016, good in 2017 with 3.8 War and had .2 WAR in 2018 and 1.5 WAR in 2019 and below replacement level in his final year. They had two good years total between the three of them. As an aside, Chris Davis / Jason Heyward / and Justin Upton were the top AAV position players. They were not any better.

True and of course they need a SS. They would have needed to get Scherzer and Ray to have a realistic shot at a playoff run beyond the first round. So, that's $65M AAV for two SPs and another 50M AAV for the BP arms and a SS. Obviously, not remotely feasible. If they felt they could spend $50 total, I am sure they discussed what it would cost in prospects to make up the difference in what's needed. They don't even have the premier prospects teams want for established difference makers so the cost would be several of our top prospects. San Diego traded 10 prospects and the players they traded for were relatively highly compensated. My guess is that their conclusion in terms of how they could build a contender is VERY different than the strategies that have been discussed in numerous threads here. It's not surprising their actions thus fat don't match what most posters here think should be done. My guess is that they looked at the relative probability of succeeding at putting together a contender by opening day and completely ruled out that path. My guess is that they also evaluated a path focused on 2023 and determined the odds of success, especially sustained success were much greater if their planned focused on establishing a couple more SP prospects in 2022 and transitioning Miranda / Martin and possibly Lewis to the ML club. I would guess they imagined a scenario with Buxton / Polanco / Garver / Kepler / Kirilloff / Miranda / Martin and 4 homegrown starters and Maeda back as a great core. Now they still have $50M to supplement whatever additional pieces they need. They could also move a portion of Donaldson's contract, pass on Sano's option and have $70M to spend. I am sure they asked themselves if it was reasonable to expect they could come up with 2 SPs from the group of Balazovic / Duran /Canterino / SWR / Enlow / Winder / Sands and came to the conclusion that a patient approach had a significantly higher probability of sustained success.

I agree it would have turned out great had they signed him. Would Buxton have signed a modest deal given his potential? He also was a number 9 hitter that did not do much to indicate he was going to be a great offensive player. So, I am by no means saying it would not have been a good idea. Just saying it's not surprising either side might not had been inclined much less both sides.

If we toss out Buxton's first season when he had wRC+ of 5 and look at the next 3 seasons, he had a wRC+ of 86 / 92 & -2. Buxton played in exactly one-third of the games played. Is it at all puzzling the team did not extend early on? It would have been great if they had because it probably would have been a great deal. Would Buxton have signed the type of deal his performance to that point would have merited? IDK but it's not hard to understand why the Twins did not extend him early on like an Azuna or most recently Wander Franco. If they were going to get it done the time was probably after the 2019 season. However, he once again played in only 87 games. It's not surprising they were reluctant to bet big at that point and it would not be surprising that Buxton would not sign when he had the opportunity to greatly improve his value. I guess what I am saying is that this situation is not exactly an enigma.

Buxton or no Buxton, they need 3 SPs, a couple BP arms, and a SS. They also need to transition a corner OFer prospect to the majors this year. Transitioning a 3B is also just around the corner too. I would say they have some rebuilding to do with or without Buxton.

Hard to understand this one. I can accept if they invest in the future by devoting this year to retooling. However, if that's the case, give Contreras or Boyd a shot or just cut Cave and make a trade for someone with upside.

Honestly, I don't know what to think. He was incredible early this season. One the other hand, that was a very small sample compared to 5 years of very modest offensive performance. I find myself hoping they sign him but if I get objective for a moment it could be detrimental to the team if they get exactly what they got the last 5 years. Yet, I am still hoping they sign him because I want to believe he will perform more like the early 2021 season and less like previous to this season.

Actually, it means he is playing it has nothing to do with how well he is playing. The CBA prohibits any of the incentives to be based on quality of performance. Try to get that deal working in any other profession. If I show up, I want you to pay me like an elite performer regardless of how I perform. I really hope they sign him too but I don't have any problem understanding their caution.

I am going to use your favorite term. Which teams with below average revenue operate in a manner expecting to contend every year? There are not any. Once again, you will just ignore the facts. Prove me wrong with examples. Who said the add has to be a JA Happ type? Second, are you saying that it does not matter if our prospects get innings/experience at the major league level? Don't expect to respond with anything other than where are your examples if you follow your normal pattern and avoid backing up your statement by providing examples of teams that expect to win every year.

They could also add a couple guys to help with the transition to the guys coming up. That gives them a decent product (sells tickets) and provides a better opportunity to build a homegrown pitching staff which in turn will provide a better path to building a contender. There is often a presumption among fans that every year is a go for it year. That presumption does not exist in a FO.

I sure thought it was more fun winning 100 in 2019 then losing 89 in 2021.

When the Twins were out of it we all wanted the prospects to get a shot and we hated it when players that were not part of the future got playing time. The same is true of these other teams. Are we supposed to penalize them for trying to rebuild their teams. I don't believe they are trying to lose. They are trying to develop players and the practices which best facilitate getting better result in losing for a period of time.

Amen!