Major League Ready

Eddie Rosario was a converted infielder. I remember some stiff when Ian Desmond was signed as a free agent and moved to the OF. This is not something that is not something that is real memorable for me so there are many good examples that I am sure escape me.

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?

There are many possible scenarios if traditional roles and traditional practices are jettisoned. If the stacked or "hybrid" pitchers can't give you 3-4 innings each the game is in jeopardy no matter how the BP is used. When they deliver as expected, the number of IPs and number of RPs is less than or equal to 5-6 inning SP. The goal for stacked or "hybrid" pitchers should deliver 7 or maybe even 8 IPs between them. The 2nd guy can be left in for the 8th if you have a 3 or more run game or just because he is pitching well. The old practice of brining in the 7th and 8th inning guy when the game is anywhere near close needs to be adjusted. Of course, the relative recent demand on the BP should play into the decision as well. They can be used more liberally if the demand on them has been light or normal. New strategies require a different mindset and different practices. A big part of the Rays success is that everyone in the organization is on board. Cohesion is always an important element in any organization and even more so when the organization is transitioning to a new strategy and implementing new practices.

You will have to explain to us how playing for the Twins is a barrier to doing something done by many other players for many other teams?

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.

I would bet you get your wish. The industry is changing. Once again, the Rays have led the way in developing new strategies / practices. They showed the league how to maximize talent and put together very effective pitching staffs by utilizing that talent in an unconventional way. I would not give them all the credit. We have increasingly seen this strategy in playoff series. The Braves utilized it in route to winning the WS this year. We are seeing great angst here because of the perception it has to be done a certain way. Fans who resist so strenuously will continue to be frustrated. Personally, I would be thrilled to see the Minnesota Twins be on the front of the adaptation curve for once. I like an 8 IP start as much as the next guy and I am sure if we get our own Jake DeGrom they will let him go deep. However, I much prefer they adapt their practices to account for the fact there are very few Jake DeGroms out there.

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.

I think we will see those final two spots will be handled by stacking Dobnak / Jax and maybe Cotton with Winder / Balazovic / Strotman / Duran / Sands and Canterino throughout the year. I also expect one more veteran to be added via free agency or trade. I could see that being someone like Odorizzi who fits into this model. Someone like Odorizzi meaning someone who is good a couple times through a lineup. It would be great if the Dobnak we saw in spring training emerged and gave us more quality innings but that's a stretch. This would be a good way to give him a chance to improve.

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.

My guess is that they are going to make some 1 inning guys 2 inning guys. They are going to take some traditional SPs like Odorizzi that are only good for 2X through the order and make them a "hybrid". The model will look something like these two examples. It will look something like the WS did this past year. AVE AVE # OF TOTAL # IP REST Games IP IP 3 Traditional Starters 4.66 5.6 33 153.95 461.84 4 Hybrid 3.33 4.33 43 142.27 569.10 2 2 IP Specialist 1.66 2.66 70 115.45 230.90 4 1 IP Specialist 0.9 2.2 84 75.68 302.73 13 1564.57 AVE AVE # OF TOTAL # IP REST Games IP IP 3 Traditional Starters 4.66 5.6 33 153.95 461.84 2 Hybrid 3.33 4.33 43 142.27 284.55 4 2 IP Specialist 1.66 2.66 70 115.45 461.80 4 1 IP Specialist 0.9 2.2 84 75.68 302.73 13 1510.92

You mean like Michael Cuddyer or Alex Gordon or Chris Bryant or Michael Taylor or Cody Bellinger or Ben Zobrist or the many many others who successfully played INF and OF.

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.

So, in other words. You want to make very bold assertions but you are unwilling to back any of them up with any form of validation. You know you have nothing which is why you refuse to answer. Here is your chance to show that the points I am making are pointless. What a great opportunity to show I am clueless. I set you up to prove your case while showing the stupidity of my position. Now all you have to do is actually back up what you are saying.

It's really easy to make a bold claim. Tell us specifically which terms and conditions being demanded by players in this CBA are good for the game. I would love to hear how less control is good for the game. I guess it would be great if you root for a top revenue team. They could sign players for small markets a year earlier. Hurray! How is a significantly higher CBT threshold is good for the game or less revenue sharing. Both obviously diminish parity which is already to lop-sided. Actually, I would love to hear how player compensation matters at all. The average salary today is twice what it was 20 years ago. How was that raise good for baseball? Player comp is 600% of what it was 30 years ago. Is the game better today because players are making much more? I would love to hear one thing the owners are asking for that is bad for the game.

Really. Tell me exactly (not generalization) what the owners have asked for that is bad for the game. As you know, I have listed the specifics of what the player shave asked for that is bad for the game. Their is absolutely no spin that could support their demand for shorter control, less revenue sharing, and a significantly higher CBT threshold would escalate the problem with parity and therefore are bad for the game.

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.

This would be a great tool but it's accuracy is suspect. The first two I checked were Chris Sale and Blake Snell. The tool gives a return of 0 WAR for Chicago. They received Moncada and Kopech so obviously this is wrong. They show 1.28 WAR given for Snell with 0 return. Mejia shows 1.4 WAR and Patino .1 WAR on BB Reference. I think they may have some kinks to work out.