Major League Ready

I have been critical of Sano for years. However, he can't watch Simmons while moving to first base and finding the bag. Simmons made a mistake going to second and Sano is not to blame for expecting the throw was coming from Simmons.

IDK how the Twins walk away from Berrios for Abrahams and another one of Lange / Thompson. However, the Padres have not demonstrated a willingness to part with this type of prospect. They did not trade them for Snell or Darvish.

I was not talking about myself. You twisted the point which was they were not considered under paid in 1970 so one would think public perception is they were well compensated when their salary had grown 10X. If they did not think so at 10X, I am sure public and player perception was they were paid well when it reached 20X what it was in 1970. Then, after it reached this level of 20X what they were paid in 1970, their salaries grew another 5X and therefore more than 100X what it was in 1970. There are many holes in your position in terms of economic theory. Every profession has people that are the very top of their profession. Their salary is not determined by the ability of the company to pay. Compensation for people living in a free market society are determined by one of two things. Some get paid a minimum wage determined by law. Employers pay the rest an amount sufficient to retain their services. Some industries don’t pay as well as others so they probably don’t get the most skilled people. However, employees in the most lucrative industries don’t pay employees based on ability to pay. They pay an amount sufficient to attract these people from other industries. So. Let me ask you this … If MLB paid every player on the 26 man roster $1M/year? That would still be twice as much as the next highest professional BB league. What percentage of their employees would they lose? Maybe 2 to 3 tenths of one percent could play in a higher paying sport, right. How many could make more in a different profession? Perhaps more importantly, how many people here would stay in their position at ¼ the pay for the average and less than 5% of their current comp for top players? The answer is none. Of course, some industries pay more or less because of the relative conditions of employment. You have to pay a laborer more to do certain dangerous / dirty jobs. It's hard for me to conclude that MLB as an industry pays more generously than other industries even though their employees play a game for a living.

They are a well below 500 team so attendance is going to be down. Do you want them to do what is necessary to make the team better for years to come or do you want them to put marginally more fans in seats. I will say this ... you are consistent in focusing on the present without regard to the future. Of course, this is your prerogative. However, that approach is destined to perpetuate failure which is why MLB teams don't operate that way. Even the biggest revenue teams have learned developing young talent is the most crucial component of building a winner and operate accordingly. Many of us have also learned this lesson. We don't want to continue to suck so we are willing to invest in the current team in order to improve our chances of building a team that can win for the next several years. Some of us want a better team next year and for many years to come. So, our preference is the team employee strategies that have the best chance of creating long-term success.

My guess is that a couple starters get converted but they might stretch out to 2023. Valimont / Varland come to mind and I hate to say it but Duran might end up in the BP. From the chatter so far on newly acquired Drew Strotman sounds like he could end up in the BP. Not sure what to think of Jax Reminds me a little of Matt Wisler. I am looking forward to seeing him the rest of the season. Really hoping Pineda and Happ are moved by the deadline to make room for auditions.

You are welcome to your opinion. I just don’t think anyone was saying those poor baseball players don’t get paid a decent wage in 1970. IDK, I was in grade school but I never heard of anyone opting to do something else because of the pay level. When it doubled 5 years later, I really doubt anyone thought they were underpaid for six months work. I would also assume that if it was an acceptable wage when it was half just 5 years earlier, most found the wages good. If not, when just 3 years later average salary increased 123% from double the amount in 1970, I am betting people at the time were thinking holy cow I wish my salary had more than quadrupled in just 10 years. I am really doubting anyone was thinking the poor baseball players only make 5 times the average American family. Then, baseball salaries nearly doubled again in 1981, 3 year later. Player salaries were 10X the average US household. I am thinking 99% of the public was thinking baseball players were fortunate to be so well compensated. Then, they doubled again four years later in 1985. I more than doubled again by 1991. Can we quit feeling sorry for them at this point with their salaries having gone up 2900%. That’s correct 29 fold in 21 years. Because if that was not enough, salaries roughly quadrupled over the next 20 years. If you are keeping track, that’s almost exactly 100 times what they were paid in 1970. Average US income grew roughly 5X over the same 40 year period. Oh ... and after they increased 100 fold, average salary went up over a million dollars per year. To put that in perspective, their raise (not their income) after increasing 100 fold is equal to 12.5 times the average household income in Minnesota. I think our (fans) concern where labor relations is concerned is that we don't lose a season and the preservation of the game. I see absolutely no reason why the average guy should give a crap about players getting even greater compensation. Top pitchers get paid the equivalent of 13 years income for the average house hold (not individual) for ONE GAME, For the season, the make the rough equivalent of what a an average couple would make in 400 years. I really don't know why we should care in the slightest if they get a raise.

I was a critic of Sano when most here did not like him criticized. However, I have to agree he is far from a bust. His career wRC+ is 116 which is 7 point s above the league average for 1B. Even his last 100 ABs produced a wRC+ of 111. I would trade him if someone else wanted to bet on his resurgence. In other words, we got something for him but I would not just dump him during a lost season. That males no sense.

Just to be clear. I don't know why any of us care how the dollars are distributed. The owners and the players are the beneficiaries of an industry that has grown steadily for 50 years. What I think we should care about is our experience as fans and the general good of the game. Work stoppages are not good for our experience as fans. We would not need to worry about work stoppages without the union and the players are certainly not an oppressed group that needs protection. The sport also needs whatever changes can aid in creating parity. Shorter team control control will further erode parity. Universal DH / Shifts, toy name it. The union will fight it if they can find a way to get a bigger slice of the pie. None of this is good for the fans or the game. Both sides are focused on money. That should not be a surprise but the owners have a greater interest in preserving / improving the game. I seriously doubt the current players care if the game shrinks and player salaries are reduced 10 years from now. I might have some concern for player salaries If the average payer did not make more in a year than the average American made in a lifetime, My concern is the preservation and improvement of the game and not losing a season because the best paid profession in the United States wants even more.

Show me one where the employee compensation is well over 100X more than what it was 50 years ago. Let's also not pretend that freedom to play elsewhere is all that important to most players. The ability to shop their services to the highest bidder is monumentally more important to the players than playing in a specific city. The vast majority would stay with the same team their entire career if that team would and could pay them the highest salary. I will leave you with a figure I like use to illustrate the great fortune of MLB players. That figure is $3.17M. That's how much the average American would make annually if average income had grown for everyone else as much as BB players.

No, it didn't work 50 years ago. The union does not have much impact today on how much teams spend and therefore what players make collectively. Any business is going to spend just so much. Teams are not going to suddenly spend more because players become free agents earlier and they would not spend any differently today if the union went away. There is also the fact that competition provides a competitive wage for other highly skilled professions without unions? Why does it work for Doctors, Lawyers, Managers and all the people in Technology and numerous other skilled professions but Baseball players somehow won't get adequate compensation without a union? There was a time where unions were necessary across many sectors of labor. Baseball is no longer one of them. People making an average of $4M/year don't need a union to get adequately compensated. The players association has become as much a hinderance as it is an asset to the good of the game and it might be leaning to the side of hinderance. I know you don't agree but show me another group / profession where wages have climbed at double digit rates for 50 years. Yes, I am aware that growth has flattened. The BB world changes too requiring many more employees and revenue is tapering off. The owners are going to try to make changes to counter the slowing interest in MLB. How much do you want to bet the union will fight those changes?

There is some merit to what you say in general but it's not nearly this simple.

It looks like they have about $400K above slot values to use to tempt Birdwell / others.

In hindsight it would have been a great move to capitalize on Kepler's value after what looked like a breakout season. However, it's very difficult to trade a high quality / established MLB position player for established MLB pitching. Not impossible but very difficult especially for a corner outfielder. They probably could have gotten pitching that would be ready in 2022 but that would not have gone over well with the fan base.

Happy to see Valimont bounce back. I am going to watch his portion of that game before the Twins game tonight. Really curious about him.

There is no denying you are correct that this information was widely reported. However, those who want to insist the Twins could have signed player XYZ absolutely and completely ignore this type of information. Here is another fact, there has been exactly two instances in the past 25 years a top free agent SP signed a 5 plus year deal with a team producing equal or less revenue than the Twins. Mike Hampton with Colorado was the first. Of course, that deal was one of the biggest busts in the history of free agents. The other was Grienke to Arizona which requires two asterisks. Arizona had just signed a billion dollar TV deal and they did not win with Grienke. The closest example of a success story was Scherzer to Washington. The Nationals generate enough incremental over the Twins to pay for Scherzer but they are close enough to at least make it plausible. The point here is when someone insists with such reverence we should have signed Wheeler / Darvish or any other top free agent SP they MUST ignore a great deal of fact, history, and common sense to insist with such conviction that we just needed to make a competitive offer. The common sense being history and the fact that their are numerous teams with significant revenue advantage over the Twins. Who should we expect to win a bid when one of the people (teams) have significantly more money? Does a person of average income drive the same car or live in the same house as someone making 50% more?

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

A lot of people complained that these trades would not help us for 4-5 years. Are we going to also complain we are getting guys that can help almost immediately because they require a 40 man spot?

We have no idea if they are insisting on a club friendly deal. You are insisting that Berrios will accept an offer that is reasonable at this point. He may not be willing to accept an offer unless it is so outrageous that Berrios and his agent are confident no other team will match it. If this is the case, why would they sign him now? That would be the height of incompetence. For one thing, he could blow out his arm next season. It happens. Why take the risk if you have to make an offer so high no other team would match? Why not let the process playout and probably get him for less than would it would take today. In the meanwhile, take the prospects? It sounds like they are willing to pay Buxton as long as he actually plays. This seems very prudent. Do you really want them committing a huge guarantee to a guy that has a very consistent track record of playing in less than 100 games? He is a great player but paying full market value for 80 games a year is a very bad investment and one that could really hurt this team for several years.

Here is how I see it. They tried like hell to get Wheeler. He wanted to play on the east coast. They tried to get a couple others to no avail. That’s how it goes when you are competing against teams in cities more attractive to players, especially when those cities have far more revenue. So, they signed Donaldson as the best alternative. We would have better with Wheeler. Would we be contending this year. Of course not. So was signing Donaldson one of our primary problems? Was it reasonable to assume Donaldson at 3B and Sano at 1B would improve the team? No doubt. Is the problem in this equation that they signed Sano or that Sano is performing very poorly? It’s really simplistic to point to spending as the problem. Where does the Donaldson signing rank in terms of the problems with this team? Very low. The premise seems to be we can’t supplement our core. Call me crazy but I don’t look at the performing player and see the primary problem. I would look at the core and determine if I actually had a core that could contend and if not why. What caused the poor performance this year? Is it how payroll was allocated? Here is my top ten more relevant problems. There are a number of reasons far more We have not developed starting pitching How have we done developing BP arms? Does Buxton’s inability to stay on the field pose a problem? Injuries other than Buxton. How is Sano working out? Is Kepler as good as we hoped? How did Rosario perform in 2019/2020? Was he a difference maker? Did the Jay / Stewart / Gordon / Bard picks contribute to our ability to build a contender? Polanco is not a SS and Lewis development has been derailed by injury. JA Happ / Colome signings. The loss of 2020 really hurt our ability to augment the rotation and BP so blame that on the pandemic. We are not going to find out if this regime can develop pitching until Balazovic / Winder / Canterino / ETC get a shot at the MLB level. BTW … The player value is one of the most ill-conceived concepts in baseball. How can player value be the same for all teams when the bottom revenue teams have literally three times the revenue? These teams can’t possibly view value propositions in the same way. I was on the fence where the Donaldson signing was concerned because of his age but I can't possibly look at this team and conclude the problem is/was even remotely due to spending on Donaldson.

I believe the budget was $545M and it came in at $555M to build Target Field. Target Field Construction

If the Astros can stay good after letting Cole go and the Rays can stay good after trading Snell and letting Morton go in free agency, I think the Twins can find a replacement for Berrios. Of course, the astros also lost Verlander to injury. It is probable that losing Berrios for 22 will hurt the team for one year. Of course, it is possible they sign someone else from a deep FA pool next year. On the other hand, not trading him will probably hurt the team for the 6-10 years after 2022. So, I guess it just depends on how inclined the FO is to bet on contending in 2022. I am betting they realize the odds of getting 3 more starters and completely revamping the BP is not a good bet. Of course, they also need Buxton to stay healthy and replace Cruz's production and get a SS. Not a bet I would make. I would bet that I can get some good pitching prospects for Berrios and Kepler. Then, I would spend the next year and a half developing those guys and the plethora of current prospects at the MLB level. Some starters and some converted to RPs. Put another year experience under Kirilloff/Larnach. Get Miranda up by mid-2022 and Lewis and/or Javier by the start of 2023. I burn a year in 2022 when we are not going to truly contend but we look good for several years post 2022. Plus, if we develop a couple starters and a couple BP arms internally, we would have a considerable amount of money to sign a Berrios equivalent or better. Now you have a far better team for several years than you would holding on to the status quo and betting on everything turning around in 2022.

I thought the same thing but not exactly a class move telling his team he is coming back if it's a negotiating tactic.

That would great if they can get it but I doubt it. I would hope they would take a reasonable trade and free up the dollars. Kirilloff looks good at 1B and we could play Garver some at 1B. Invest the money in pitching. They know this so if we are so fortunate as to have buyers for him this off-season, let's hope they move him. The only thing that could change this a little is if Kepler is moved. I could see a trade of Kepler to NY happening. They have a bunch of pitching prospects and we have OF depth.

How is this a strawman? . I am not being coy. I am wondering what's you point. Throwing strawman out there is a good way of saying nothing when you don't like the message. Are you saying the fact these teams did not win is irrelevant. Did KC or Baltimore have an ace I am not aware of? Is it or is it not true SanDiego has averaged under $80M for the past 15 years? Are you saying small market teams can be successful building a rotation via signing elite free agents. What are you saying? I would love to see hard evidence (examples) instead of "strawman". That's a copout.

The trade(s) of Pineda and hopefully Happ will make plenty of room for Winder to be promoted and Balazovic can take his place in AAA.