Major League Ready

He would be at the top of my cut list. He sometimes struggles to break 90 mph on his fastball. I don't see Thorpe as being capable of pumping up the velocity anywhere near Hendricks. If he had that capability, I believe we would have seen him transitioned to the BP.

How about Thorpe. Have you seen enough of that experiment?

The players showed in 2020 they would stick to their guns no matter what. The owners took the covid year losses and went on business as usual. If they all decide to recoup these losses, they could adjust their free agent spending over the next 2-3 years. 115 players made more than $10M last year. IDK exactly how many were past their arbitration years but it was probably 90%. Those players were paid a collective $2.13B. It would take a couple years for the owners to adjust but it is completely within their power to recoup these losses. A 200K increase in minimum salary won't prohibit a deal. That's roughly $80M but that's not the ask for prearb increases. They also are demanding another $115M in bonus pool + arbitration for 80% of 3rd year players which is another roughly $80M. I would be the owners would go for the $200K or 36% but the ask is well over 100% for prearb players. How it's divided up does not change the collective amount. My guess is that the two biggest holdups are the 80% arbitration and the increase in the CBT threshold is the biggest holdup. All of the teams outside to top 20 revenue markets have to be pretty tired of the advantage held by the top revenue markets. Those owners are not going to allow that gap to be increased. The arbitration demand completely changes the compensation framework not just for 3rd year players but all players. That alone would be an enormous ask. Combine it with all the other demands and we have a stalemate.

Nobody! Maeda and Enlow will be on the 60 day before Miranda / Martin or Celestini will be added. They could add 3 more before it becomes any issue at all. They probably will add 3 and the others will come up when an injury creates an opening. As the season wears on, we hopefully see a situation where Miranda / Martin and Celestino force the issue with good play regardless of injury. In that case, the FO will have had a couple months of play to determine if they want to part with Rooker / Gordon. A trade of Arraez / Kepler / Donaldson or even Garver could also make room at some point in the season. The pitching staff is going to be a merry go round. Guys will get auditioned. Some will stay and some will go back down. This won’t create a roster problem unless the young guys do exceptionally well and wouldn’t we love it to become a problem.

Wouldn't you say the issues that diminished ratings and the issues creating an impasse on a new CBA are mostly different issues? The universal DH will help a little and expanded playoffs would definitely keep more fans engaged. However, the changes in the game and the game itself not appealing to younger fans seem to be the problem and they are not part of this impasse. Of course, one could argue a prolonged work stoppage will drive fans away but history suggests they will return.

We have blown enough 1st round picks. He would have to demonstrate he is not at risk. Plus, the fact that he has Boras as an agent is just one more reason to avoid him. We would have never signed Buxton or Polanco if Boras was their agent.

What has that got to do with the adverse effect of raising the CBT threshold? What do you care more about, preventing teams from making a profit or preventing the further erosion of parity? It's one or the other in this case. I would add that I have provided an alternative distribution of revenue sharing that would provide greater opportunity for small market teams that are spending by redistributing those funds based on payroll spending. Fans of any team outside the top 5-7 teams promoting an increased CBT or taking away revenue sharing from low revenue teams makes absolutely no sense.

As a Twins fan or even a fan of the game, why would you advocate furthering the gap in parity. You seem to suggest that the top markets being able to spend more is somehow good for the fans. There would be two groups of winners if they significantly raise the CBT threshold. The top 5-6 teams in terms of revenue could sign an additional top free agent without penalty. Therefore, those few teams and their fans as would benefit as would a handful of players. The bottom 20 teams that will never spend at that level and their fans will be further disadvantaged. Why should we want to be more disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint so that some free agent gets $200M instead of $180M?

There are firms or teams within consulting firms that specialize in economic analysis of business models. This is a deep well that would require several pages to outline and explain all of the problems associated with comparing compensation between the leagues in the context of revenue split. Nobody wants to read 10 pages so here is what is believe it or not a brief summary. 1) The percentage that goes to players is not the same as player salaries which is the number often used to calculate the percentage going to players. MLB pays out roughly 9% of revenue for player benefits and signing bonuses. How does that compare to other leagues? The NBA has virtually no signing bonuses. 2) There are a myriad of differences in Operating Costs. a. Facilities costs – How much do MLB teams spend on construction costs compared to NBA and NFL teams. b. Facilities maintenance – I would assume it costs a lot more to maintain target field for 82 games as compared to 41 games for the Wolves or 8 games for the Vikings. c. Milb costs – The Vikings have a practice squad and the Wolves have a G-league team. MLB teams have substantially more cost in their Milb operations? d. Travel and Hotel – 82 games on the road vs 41 for NBA and 8 for NFL e. Non-plater employees – how do #of employees compare between leagues. The bottom line is that the normal practice in any business relationship is to find a metric that adjusts compensation fairly as variables change. Revenue is a terrible starting point because the amount available to pay players is not determined solely determined by revenue. It’s determined by Revenue less Operating Expense. If for example average operating costs for MLB is 38% and the NBA is 33% and the NFL is 30%, a 50% revenue split is much more favorable to the other league. Now, I don’t know what those percentages are and neither does the person who wrote this article. As a matter of fact, it does not appear the author understands these principals at all. A set percentage of revenue was a smart play for NBA and NFL teams when they made those deals. If you believe revenue will continue to make significant gains and operation costs will be relatively stable, operating expense as a percentage of revenue will decrease over time. Of course, that means net income as a percentage of revenue will increase. Right now I would not bet on MLB revenue increasing. We also are facing significant inflation. If Russia invades the Ukraine we could have 10% inflation. Hat combination would be very bad for owners. Quite a few of those owners have degrees from Wharton and MBAs from Harvard. Believe me when I say this has not escaped them. Another thing that is much maligned is that the percentage has gone down the last few years. There is a factor that seems to be completely ignored by those who write about this trend. That would be that teams have taken a small part of the available budget (Revenue – Operating Cost) and invested in Analytics Teams / Equipment / Specialized Coaches / etc. This is very common in every industry. Good companies find better ways to perform. They add certain skill sets and pay for them by reducing others. They invest in equipment that displaces others. MLB teams don’t reduce the number of people. They change where they are investing. It’s become well understood that these investments in baseball are yielding great results in identifying and developing people, Assuming you accept the industries conclusion these investments will yield better results than continuing to invest 100% of their available budget on players, would you prefer they take 3-5% of the available funds and invest in other areas or would you prefer they continue to invest 100% in player salary and not hire these other staff of buy the specialized equipment? Finally, we would have to assume players would accept some combination of NBA / NFL / NBA contract terms. I just don’t believe that is remotely true. IMO they have the best terms. No maximum length of contract is huge. The negotiations in free agency often come down to number of years. The players goal is to get paid as much as possible for as long as possible after they are no longer producing at a level equal to their compensation. Just think about what percentage of the big free agent deals are underwater the last couple years or even several years. Those other leagues have some terms the MLBPA would never go for. They have much more restriction in terms of years or even maximum amounts. MLB players would also never give up contracts being 100% guaranteed. I just don’t believe the combination of terms that exist is these other leagues would be accepted by the MLBPA. The one fact in this article that is the most telling is that team values are higher for NFL and NBA teams. The most influential determinant of company value is profitability. Perceived risk and the forecasted revenue growth also play a role in evaluation. However, it’s a pretty fair assumption that the revenue split in these other leagues is more favorable to ownership which might explain their willingness to make such an agreement.

Do you think the players would accept non-guaranteed contracts or 5 year maximum length or a cap or a set contract max amount? Don't see the players accepting these terms. Getting paid beyond their production in the final years of their contracts is a huge priority. They also seem very focused on the top 5-10% of players. If MLB asked for these terms, we would never get back to playing IMO. How about opt-outs. Does the NBA or NFL have opt-outs?. I just don't see NBA/NFL terms as something the MLBPA would accept.

How many players would typically qualify for the pre arb bonus pool as currently proposed? Seems like it would be about a dozen players. Am I interpreting this wrong?

Absolutely correct if their goal / strategy / plan is to build a meager chance to contend in 2022. They will have to find a couple very good SPs to contribute the IP you mentioned. If their goal is to retool this year and build a contender from within these additions would probably limit their opportunities to get major league IPs for prospects. So, far it would not appear their plan is the former.

I have never been a Sano fan and have nothing but admiration for Nelson Cruz. However, was not even addressing Sano's relative merit. My point was that when a 40+ y/o players has a 2nd half like Cruz did, front offices are likely going to be very concerned father time has finally caught up with him. I guess the net of it is still that Sano is not all that attractive as a trade candidate but not because of Cruz.

You removed all the context which was they have a ton of depth. The question remains can they produce a couple of front of the rotation guys from this group of prospects. This whole line of thought is presuming the need for two front of the rotation guys. Trading for 2 or even 1 true top of the rotation guy would be extremely costly. There is no way around mortgaging the future. It would be a whole lot more advantages if they developed them from within. Also, if they develop 4 solid starters or even 5 where a couple are stacked, they would be positioned to afford a true top of the rotation free agent.

IDK that Cruz will be all that sought after. His numbers were pedestrian after the trade. He was 10th on the Rays with a wRC+ of 96.

I see him as a higher floor lower ceiling when compared to Balazovic / Duran / Canterino / SWR / Raya and Petty. Ryan / Winder / Sands and Enlow are all guys with a good chance to be solid contributors with Ryan / Winder maybe having a little more upside. Strotman and Valimont seem like they are the biggest wildcards. A couple of those 1st 5 guys reaching their potential would be huge for this team's chances of eventually contending. Povich / Haijar / SGL and Varland are so new it will take a while to figure out their future role but the takeaway is the system is so deep that the odds are pretty good they develop enough guys to full a rotation and add some BP arms from failed SPs. Now can they come up with some legit front of the rotation guys?

Of course, you are right. People get bent out of shape because they think these comparisons are meaningful when they provide no value at all. Allow me to add a couple of thoughts. The Twins bonus pools allotments are almost $14M which is 4.5-5% of revenue. Also, MLB benefits are $16M a team according to spotrac. Is this being considered in these comparisons or are they simply salary comparisons? IDK what the number is for NBA teams but I would assume considerably less given the smaller roster size. How about maintenance cost. I would guess it costs a whole lot more to maintain Target field. What about travel. Twice as many people to transport staying twice as many nights. Even the small things like meals / bats and balls add up over an entire season. Too many people getting upset and taking a stand when they simply don't have enough information to warrant taking a position at all.

Most of us watch MLB to see great talent. The vast majority of pitchers are markedly worse than the worst position players. Players flailing away is not a net positive when the game is suffering from a lack of action already. Plus, injury concerns for pitchers make this an absolute no-brainer. We can't complain about the state of the game while resisting change.

Are the fans being completely ignored? We don't know the exact motivation of owners. However, generally speaking business owners are inherently very concerned about their product and their customers. At least the successful ones are very mindful and this subset of entrepreneurs have been the most successful in America. Anyone here a business owner or know one? Do you or they care about you customers? Even if the motivation is purely financial, there financial interests align with fan interests. This is not even remotely true for players which is why we have demands that would be bad for the game and ownership not bending to those specific demands. I think we can look at the universal DH as a cost they were willing to bare for the good of the game. The draft lottery is a small thing but good for the game. The international draft they proposed seemed to me that it would be good for the game. Expanded playoffs are good for Owners and Players but they are also very good for the game IMO. There were several different markets in 2020 that were energized by expanded playoffs. Maintaining a modest increase in the CBT threshold and maintaining revenue sharing are without question beneficial to the game. Some big market fans might argue for shorter control but this would definitely promote a wide gap in parity. I guess we could presume owners only did this for financial reasons but that seems pretty cynical. What's good for the game is good for them financially. This is a pretty easy premise to embrace yet fans want to believe the owners are against them. They are not the side demanding change that would further the gap in parity. If this latest proposal really does drop draft pick compensation, and add the DH, expanded playoffs, and a draft lottery, as well as a reasonable increase in league minimum, I don't know how we can conclude they have not done enough.

Also, were capital contributions considered? In other words, when improvements like the ones done at Target field are made, do owners borrow that money or do they contribute the capital? IDK, but it would change the calculation.

If it's such a great idea ... why wouldn't they? They don't sign them for the same reason Milwaukee or Cleveland does not. Spending that big a percentage of payroll on one player is a bad idea.

Granted, it's done. Just saying ... would you prefer to go home to your family after home games. Would you prefer to see your kids. Do you think their wives prefer to live in separate homes. The decision is a product of several factors. This is one that is not favorable to most FAs.

Why doesn't Miami sign big name free agents? Huge media market Endorsement opportunities. Great tax benefits.

Because I have learned that it is pointless to argue the facts with many people here because some of you will ignore whatever facts you don't want to acknowledge. For example, when I kept asking the people who insisted this was all about owner greed if certain specific demands were bad for the game, they flat out refused to acknowledge the facts. They got downright combative about me asking for an answer. In this case, the attached memo clearly showed there was an understanding that MLB and the MLBPA had acknowledge the need for an alternative agreement if fans were not present. The MLBPA proceeded as if this was not the case and then intentionally mislead the fans. Even the national baseball media acknowledged the MLBPA claims that MLB had agreed to prorated salaries without fans present was fiction. The prorated salaries was the core premise and starting point. When it became clear fans would not be presented they literally ignored the basis of that agreement was that fans be present. They proceeded as if that discussion never took place and flat out misrepresented the understanding to fans. They literally went to the media telling them those terrible owners agreed and are not reneging on their agreement when they knew there initial agreement was based on fans being present. It's rather impossible to negotiate when one party is proceeding as if that understanding did not exist. Of course, the fact that they would not budge from 100% is well-documented. This timeline failed to mention the MLBPA agreed to negotiate different terms if fans were not present and it fails to mention the part where they mislead the public. I especially like the May 29th headline "MLBPA waiting for evidence of 'dubious' financial claims". It's widely acknowledged that roughly 40% of revenue comes from fans in attendance. Yet, the MLBPA concluded this was not problematic. That is so absurd it defies words. Of course, we know teams lost a pile of money so this assertion was so void of any financial acumen it's stunning. Also, anyone who has ever done economic analysis on this scale knows that it would be impossible to pull together that much data, consolidate it in a form that could validated and then validate it in a manner that would satisfy players. I have 8-9 figure contracts for nearly 30 years, and I have never in my entire career run across a more absurd statement or position. When one party thinks losing 40 of revenue does not create a need for adjustment you have an impossible position.

The 10 year pacts can produce situations that are unfair to players who are producing who could be getting that money. However, these 6+ year deals that go bad nullify some of the spending advantage of big teams. In other words, they actually help parity so I have no problem with these deals. The question is would a 5 year max help average revenue teams sign some of these top players. I am guessing not. The big revenue teams would offer an AAV that modest revenue teams could not afford. A floor does absolutely nothing / zero to help low revenue teams put a contender on the field. It's only benefit is to get really bad teams to hire veterans. Really great for the players but would anyone here be satisfied if our 61 win team in 2019 would have had 65 wins. Also , by definition the goal would be to take playing time away from prospects which is not what any of us would want. As I have said, there is a MUCH better way to use revenue sharing to help low revenue teams. Players care much more about how much they make over their career than what they earn the first couple years. They want more pay early only because they believe it will result in them making more in total. They are working towards hopefully generational wealth but even a bench player is going to make enough to retire at 35 and live very comfortably without ever working another day. That's there focus. The reality is the owners could very easily manage their payrolls via how they pay free agents to pay out the exact same amount regardless of what they pay in the first 3 or 4 years. I would like to see a significant raise in years 1-3 but really ... why do we care if they get paid more early. What is the benefit to fans? I particularly dislike the $100M pool because it will pay 3-4% (guess) of players more than all of then other prearb players will make combined even if they get a 35% raise. Those are the same players that will likely get huge contracts at some point. Once again it wreaks of Boras.