Major League Ready

I think you are absolutely correct. A floor would benefit players. My question is why are so many fans concerned about what players make as opposed to what's good for the sport? If you are an average wage earner, your annual income would be $3.2M if US wages would have risen at the same rate as player salaries over the last 50 years. I think their compensation is quite adequate. Did the salaries handed out before the lockout indicate players were abused employees? Let's concentrate on what's good for the game. We are in the situation we are in because the players started out with a long list of demands and some of them were bad for the game. They did not bunch an inch. That's stupidity. Not giving in to demands that would hurt the game is not stupid. Trying negotiate with very unreasonable people that won't budge is not easy and it takes much longer than what should be needed.

I don't understand why you are comparing today to a future state scenario. In a future state where a team was required to spend to a floor the dynamics would be completely different. If you force teams to spend money, would they choose to win a couple extra games which would be absolutely meaningless or would they elect to spend that money on basically buying some prospects. Regardless, it does not matter. The entire premise has little or no value and there are a number of problems with it. Would you care if your team won 65 games instead of 62. This is in no way a solution to enabling lower revenue teams to put a contending team on the field. Also, as best I can tell fans (at least the ones here) don't want mediocre veterans taking playing time from prospects during a rebuild. The owners are never going to go for a floor for good reason. They will address it with a draft lottery. You also ignored the case for a floor vs distribution of revenue sharing based on payroll. I don't know the owners would go for that either but it provides greater benefit than a floor if the goal is to provide low revenue teams with a better chance at contending. If the goal is to turn 62 win teams into 65 win teams, a floor would be effective.

I have always admired Donaldson as a player so I was cautiously optimistic when they signed him. However, investing $22M in a free agent for 2.2 WAR is not exactly a problem but he is not a solution either. 2.2 WAR for $22M is underperforming and you are certainly hoping for more in the first 2 years when you sign a 34 y/o to a 4 year deal with a 5th year option that costs $16M or an $8M buyout. I seriously doubt he will be worth $16M in 2024 so you really need to consider that cost as well. Many here predicted this deal would bite us in the ass. I fear they will be right if we hold on to him. So, I am hoping he has a great first half and is dealt at the deadline even if it costs some retained salary.

I understand where you are going with this and you make a good point. It appeared to me they definitely would have preferred to sign Wheeler but getting him away from the east coast was a very tall task. So, I think they agreed with you too. Bumgarner also had a definite destination in mind and that probably would have been a disaster anyway. Ryu would have been good but I think most of us were really weary of his durability. Here is the good news. My belief is that they recognize that filling 4 or more spots in the rotation with homegrown players sets up a much better shot at sustained success. If they were to accomplish this goal, they could afford any top of the rotation SP in the league. They still need to convince them to come to Minnesota but it's financially feasible. Even if they spent $35M on a SP, they would still have room to extend a couple players or sign a SS if that does not work out. I believe that's what they see in the future that many here do not. Obviously there is no guarantee our SP prospect fill two more holes in 2022. However, if they do 2023 looks something like this ....

Would/should winning one playoff game change how we interpret the results of the last 3 years?

I accepted your challenge and starting going through them one by one. The premise that owners are stupid is floated here so frequently I wanted to have an informed opinion on this assertion. Plus, I thought others might be interested in the credentials of ownership. I got as far as Kansas City before calling it day because the facts tell a consistent story that did not require I look at every team. The net is that you sound like a 30 handicap calling Tiger Woods a hack. I pasted these descriptions from Baseball Reference and Wikipedia. I am glad you provided an opportunity to point out just how ridiculous fans can be. Most of these individuals have extremely impressive credentials individually. Given the many minority owners and corporations involved, collectively you are talking about dozens of exceptionally accomplished individuals. There are a few lawyers among them too and lawyers know how to negotiate. To sit here and call the collective buffoons makes a statement all right but it’s not about the competence of owners. Arizona – Ken Kendrick founded Datatel, a software company, in 1968. In 1989, he became the principal investor in Woodforest National Bank Atlanta Braves – Liberty Media Is a $9B entity that owns a variety of businesses. This company generates almost as much revenue as the 30 MLB teams combined. Obviously Liberty media contributes an impressive array of business acumen to the owners group. Baltimore – Peter Angelos. the son of Greek immigrants, he was a self-made man, rising up from a gritty working class neighborhood to run his own law firm in Baltimore. He made his fortune pleading in favor of workers incapacitated by exposure to asbestos and winning enormous settlements. Boston – John Henry & Tom Werner. Henry grew up on a farm in southern Illinois and made his fortune by investing on commodities option. He is known in the options industry for his reliance on analytical methods as opposed to playing hunches. Werner made his fortune as a television producer. A commodities trader and a TV producer. Does not sound like a guy with meager analytical or negotiating skills. Chicago Cubs - Ricketts grew up in Omaha, NE, the son of the founder of Ameritrade Corporation, a brokerage firm. He obtained an undergraduate degree and an MBA from the University of Chicago. Yes, he grew up entitled but the MBA suggests he is far from a “Baffon”. The average GMAT score for applicants at U of C is 732 so it probably takes at least 700 to get in which is the 88th percentile of all applicants. He is not dumb. Chicago White Sox – Jerry Reinsdorf - Reinsdorf earned a bachelor's degree from George Washington University in Washington, D.C.where he became a member of Alpha Epsilon Pi. He subsequently moved to Chicago in 1957.[9] Reinsdorf became a CPA and lawyer as well as a registered mortgage underwriter and a certified review appraiser. He leveraged a full scholarship offer from the University of Chicago Law School into a scholarship from the Northwestern University School of Law. Yep, areal moron witrh no credentials to suggest he could negotiate his direct tv bill. Cincinnati Reds - Robert Castellini – Education: Georgetown and an MBA from the Wharton School of Business. Once he had graduated, Castellini went home to work at his family’s business, which is called Castellini Co. At the time, Castellini Co. was not doing as well as it is now, which speaks well of Castellini’s contributions to the family business over the course of his multi-decade career. Cleveland - Larry Dolan - Education: Notre Dame. Upon leaving Notre Dame, Dolan served in the United States Marine Corps for two years, where he attained the rank of first lieutenant. Upon leaving the Marine Corps in 1958, Dolan worked as assistant prosecutor in Geauga County, Ohio before going into private practice. He eventually became president and managing partner of Thrasher, Dinsmore, & Dolan in Chardon, Ohio. Colorado Rockies - Dick Monfort graduated from the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley with a bachelor's degree in Business Management. He joined Monfort of Colorado in 1974 as a cattle buyer. He then served as vice president federal cattle procurement from 1979–81, group vice president of cattle products 1983-1984 and executive vice president 1984-1987. When ConAgra bought Monfort of Colorado in 1987, Dick became president of ConAgra Red Meats. At the University of Northern Colorado, Dick serves on the board of trustees along with the board of directors at University of Colorado Hospital, Denver Zoo, and the Colorado Economic Development Board. Dick now resides in Denver, Colorado with his wife Karen. Charlie Monfort graduated from the University of Utah with a bachelor's degree in Marketing and Business Management. Charlie started working for the family business Monfort of Colorado, Inc. also in 1988 as president of International Sales until 1996. In 1996, Charlie became president of ConAgra Foods International; later leaving in 1998 to concentrate on his previous commitment to the Rockies. Charlie also serves on the Board of Trustees at Colorado Mesa Universit. He is also a board member of the Kempe Foundation, the Special Olympics, and the Monfort Family Foundation. Detroit Tigers – Chris Ilitch did in fact inherit his position. As president and CEO, Ilitch leads and provides oversight to the Ilitch companies, including Little Caesars Pizza, Blue Line Distribution, the Detroit Red Wings, Olympia Entertainment, the Detroit Tigers, Olympia Development of Michigan (real estate), Little Caesars Pizza Kit Fundraising Program, and Champion Foods (food manufacturing). That’s a pretty big job. Inherited or not, that’s a pretty good business education by default. I have no idea just how competent he is in this role but assuming he is stupid because he inherited a role is a big stretch. Houston Astros - Jim Crane - After graduating from college, Crane went into the insurance business. Crane borrowed $10,000 from his sister and founded Eagle USA Airfreight, an air-freight logistics business. Crane took his profits from EGL and formed Crane Capital Group. He also became a director and shareholder in Western Gas Holdings, LLC. an energy company operating in the southeastern Rocky Mountain region and southern Mid-Continent area. Western Gas Holdings and Western Gas Partners were acquired by Anadarko Petroleum. Crane is also the majority shareholder in Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC, chairman of the board for CargoJet, and director of both Nabors Industries and natural gas company Western Midstream. Kansas City Royals - John Sherman - Sherman graduated from Ottawa University. He later founded LPG Services Group, which later merged with Dynegy. In 1996, Sherman founded Inergy. It merged with Crestwood Holdings in 2013. Sherman bought a minority share of the Cleveland Indians in 2016, and became their vice chairman There is one other ownership group that is unique and should not be ignored because I stopped at KC. The Mariners are owner by First Avenue Entertainment and 17 minority owners. They are led by John W. Stanton. He is the Chairman of Trilogy International Partners, Inc., which operates wireless systems internationally, Trilogy Equity Partners, which invests in wireless-related companies. Stanton founded and served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Western Wireless Corporation, a wireless telecommunications company, from 1992 until shortly after its acquisition by ALLTEL Corporation in 2005. He was Chairman and a director of T-Mobile USA, formerly VoiceStream Wireless Corporation, a mobile telecommunications company, from 1994 to 2004, and was Chief Executive Officer from 1998 to 2003. Mr. Stanton was a director of Clearwire Corp. from 2008 to 2013, Chairman between 2011 and 2013, and interim Chief Executive Officer during 2011. The whole ownership is stupid thing really needs a deeper level of consideration. The definition of random might require a little looking into as well.

How would you be balancing revenue if you don't give it to the teams with less revenue. That would not promote parity. Now, if we are talking about the penalties, there may be an opportunity to distribute that differently. Currently, the first $13 million will be used to defray clubs' funding obligations under the MLB Players Benefits Agreements. Of the remaining sum, 50% of the remaining proceeds collected for each Contract Year, with accrued interest, will be used to fund player compensation as described in the MLB Players Benefits Plan Agreements and the other 50% shall be distributed to clubs that did not exceed the Base Tax Threshold in that Contract Year.[6] The 50% distributed to clubs that did not exceed the Base Tax Threshold means wealthy clubs that are just under the cap still get revenue. That money could be distributed in a manner that better served parity. The 50% going to player benefits could be distributed among prearb players or the bottom 25% or some other manner that does not include the highest paid players. Increasing penalties and distributing differently would serve competitive parity as well provide additional compensation to lower paid players. However, the players are very would likely stringently resist increasing penalties for exceeding the CBT threshold.

I disagree counselor. The starting point by which to determine who is asking for concessions is not the new ask, it’s where they left off. If Party 1 has a contract for services expire at $X and party 2 asks for 1.5X, in a new contract, and we arrive at 1.25X, the person conceding something is party 1 as I see it. They owners have not asked for a salary cap like other sports have. They have not asked for a maximum annual amount like some sports. They have not asked for the number of years to be limited and they have not asked for non-guaranteed contracts. The owners are asking for one thing, expanded playoffs. Given 85-90% of that money will go to player salaries, I would not call that asking for a concession. All of the concessions necessary to get a new CBA will be on the part of ownership.

There were 4 teams under $60M last year. Cleveland was under $50M with a pretty decent team. Pittsburg was at $45M. Even Houston’s went under $50M when they rebuilt. If it were the case that we are only talking $20M, what’s the point? On average we are talking about 2.5 wins. I mean really, what is the point? Would 62 wins make any more difference to you than 60 wins? Taking away the ability to trade adds another layer of disadvantage to these teams. You would be taking away the strategies Tampa / Oakland / and Cleveland have used to obtain talent. The driving force of a floor is that people hate the fact a team gets revenue sharing and does not spend it on players. Why not distribute revenue sharing based on player payroll. This absolutely ensures the money is spent on players without any potential pitfalls associated with a floor. Make your case for the benefit of a floor vs distribution based on payroll. Owner still probably would not accept this because business owners don't take kindly to being told how to invest in their business. However, this approach has a lot better chance of getting accepted.

It would not make any difference if those teams were barred from signing multi year deals. If they trade away a $40M.yr guy and retain most of his salary for a year of two, they definitely would not have the budget or the need. That type of arrangement would satisfy their floor for a couple years if that's how they chose to arrange it. Perhaps more to the point is that the owners would NEVER accept terms that put teams in this position. It would just never happen. The benefit is meager at best for fans. It's a detriment to teams. This who competitive integrity thing was a great sound bite on the players behalf but their primary demands directly conflict any desire for competitive integrity. If your alternative is to spend $40M for 5 wins when you suck, would you have to have that type of haul to make it worthwhile? I think the answer is a resounding no. You take the best you can get. I would take 2 top 100 prospects and couple guys with a chance to MLB players in a heartbeat in that situation. The concept of a floor is ripe with flaws. There is a much better way to assure revenue sharing goes to teams that spend it on players. I think fans love the idea of making teams spend in spite of the fact it's a badly flawed concept. The irony is that we have seen quite clearly that fans don't want veterans taking innings that could be invested in players with a chance to contribute to winning long-term. There was quite a bit of bitching about this last year and right so. Am I wrong. were people not upset that Simmons was playing? Yet, the idea of a floor gets fan support. Does not make sense to me.

If we are going to make a case on pure assumption like we would have extended Pressly, it would be equally fair to say the money that would have gone to Pressly would have resulted in not signing Cruz who produced 4.3 WAR compared to Pressly's 1.6 WAR. I am not saying either form of speculation is sold critical thinking but they are on the same plane.

How about Mark Appel. Drafted 1/1 and never pitched in MLB.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Had they signed SPs to a 3 year deal 3 years ago they would be free agents. Obviously, the 4 plus year guys would still be under contract for a year. There was exactly on SP that got a 4 year deal and that was Nathan Eovaldi. Signing 3 SPs in a given year is nearly impossible. Demand always far exceeds supply so expecting us to land 3 good SPs in 1 year is not realistic. Anything is possible but this is unrealistic. BTW, the only SP to sign a longer contract was Patrick Corbin and he was replacement level last year. He could bounce back but I am glad we don't have him on the books for 3 more years. I also recall people being furious when we didn't land Bumgarner. He produced 1 war for 2020-21. How happy would we be with him taking up IPs the next 3 years?

Me too. That Chpettit19 is quite the thunder thief. He must have quite a stockpile of thunder. Seriously, their plan appears to me to put a decent team on the field this year while building a pitching staff that will support sustained success. If you evaluate "their plan" based solely on this year it's hard to imagine what they are doing. The problem is their plan is puts significant weight on long-term success. Therefore, what is assumed to be their plan is likely not at all their plan.

You make an undeniable point which I fully understood long before these threads about this CBA illustrated your point. However, it does depend on the environment. I spent a dozen years doing corporate reorgs which is why I so obnoxiously don't except these refusals to address the facts. In that environment the facts get thoroughly researched and vetted and the assumptions fully validated. Holding on to positions that are not supported by the facts is simply not accepted. You either get on board or get run over. I don't have a problem when the issue is people are unaware of the issues / facts. In this case, the facts are about as clear as it gets. They are in the form of specific demands. The implications / conclusions always have room to be debated but obviously not a single person here would try to suggest the terms were not detrimental to parity. This sort of refusal to address the facts never leads to harmony so pardon me for being a prick about it. Putting your shoulder to the wall is not a good way to earn respect or resolve any issues in any any context / environment.

Doc, I appreciate that you are at least examining the issues. I literally could not get several posters here to even acknowledge the issues when I asked repeatedly if raising the CBT, lowering revenue sharing, and reducing years of control would reduce parity and hurt the game long-term. I got condescending answers and absolute refusal (literally) to actually address the issues. These issues are the primary reason we are where we are. I happened to be in the car on Monday when “High Heat” (Christopher Russo) was on the radio. Of course, this was just ahead of the player’s proposal. He opened the show by addressing these terms. He said in no uncertain terms that this CBA process was not and should not go anywhere until the players come of these issues which “fundamentally change the game” in an adverse way. He spent 5 minutes on this point. Why is anyone surprised negotiations have gone nowhere. Perhaps more importantly, why should we want them to go anywhere under these terms? Make no mistake, this impasse is a product of the player’s insisting on terms that are bad for the game. I will once again invite anyone to dispute these terms are bad for the game and therefore the owners holding out is good for us as fans.

What you are saying is perfectly reasonable and I would not disagree this is a form of parity. Here is where we don’t necessarily disagree but differ in terms of what we desire to get out of parity. I find more value in policy that promotes a more equal chance to put a playoff or contending team on the field. That should be the goal IMO instead of a very modest impact in the form of slightly reducing the gap in number of victories top to bottom. Is this really something we should value as fans …. Our team in need of a rebuild eking out 70 wins instead of 65. Should we feel better about such a plan. Based on the unrest here when the Twins were playing veterans last year instead of prospects, I don't see this as great for the team or their fans. At the risk of repeating myself, I would prefer to distribute revenue sharing based on a 3 year running average of payroll. In other words, instead of distributing X dollars to 10 teams or whatever number receive revenue sharing, distribute 2x to the teams that are spending. This practice would elevate the impact of revenue sharing for low revenue teams that were actually making a run at contention. Same impact without the inherent potential abuse as a salary floor. IE signing a player and trading them while retaining the salary.

I have no objection to anything you have said. This all stems from a long series of posts in different threads where people insist a given approach is necessary to reach the playoffs. Ok, show me examples where this approach has succeeded. More importantly, they insist the FO is incompetent because they won't follow the approach they prescribe. I have done the research and I am not guessing in terms of how these teams were built which is why I ask people to give examples of success if they are going to insist the FO is incompetent. Show me where big free agent acquisitions, especially more than 1 have led to playoff success for a below ave revenue team. The fact is that success among this subset of teams has been by far most influenced by players that were drafted follow by players acquired as prospects (generally meaning they traded established players to get them) followed by modest priced free agents. High-end free agents and trades for well-establish players are a very small part in comparison. So, when someone insists what we need to do is follow practices that have proven to be ineffective and the FO is incompetent, I think it's reasonable to ask for some empirical proof of concept.

Since 2003 eight different teams have exceeded the CBT threshold. However, it's generally been 2-3 year. Only the Dodgers and Padres exceeded it in 2021 and the Padres only paid and extra 1.29M as a result. The Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs were above in 2019.

How would we prevent teams from getting creative and working around the system? If I were a GM in that situation I would sign a big name free agent to an offer they could not refuse. Then, I would trade them for some great prospects while retaining that player's salary. Can you imagine what you could get from a team up against the CBT threshold for Max Scherzer at $100K year? Of course, they could also take on bad contracts from large markets. That would allow them to sign a different player that hopefully is productive which would in effect increase the gap in parity.

A floor does literally nothing to change the capacity / ability to spend for the bottom 20-25 teams. Therefore, it would not change the disparity in the context of how relative revenue impacts ability to compete. Forcing the teams to add veteran talent would make them slightly better but it would not change their capacity to compete. There is also a good possibility one of those contracts they are forced to add turns into a bad contract which later detracts from their ability to put together a contender coming out of a rebuild.

Wouldn't a 97mph FB with decent control rate 60? Just asking.

That's a pertinent question. However, I have always framed this discussion in the context of playoff teams simply because that's the first goal. Of course sustained success is ambiguous and basically impossible if the standard for sustained is relative to the Yankees and Dodgers. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons since 2000. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. Does sustained be consecutive seasons or relative success over several years. I don't know about you but semantics aside I would opt for the 3 teams that produced (27) 90 win seasons over the (6) that produced 8.

How do you feel about the proposed increase in the competitive balance tax? The current demand is to raise the CBT by $35M. This would not impact many teams as only a handful have been willing to spend to that level currently. However, it does increase the already high level or competitive disparity between top and bottom revenue teams. As a fan of a mid-market team, how much should we be willing to increase the Yankees / Red Sox competitive advantage? This increase basically allows them to sign another elite free agent or extend another elite player or sign a couple Michael Taylors without consequence. I don’t know about you but I think parity needs to increased not expanded. Should we support the league’s version that would raise the CBT slightly and imposed draft penalties for exceeding the limit for a prolonged period or should be just accept increasing competitive disparity for the top handful of teams so that we can start the season on time?

Oh. I get it. You have figured out something no team / no general manger / no front office in the history of baseball has ever been able to figure out. Do you realize how absurd this statement is? No below average revenue team has produced what you feel is sufficient to call sustained success so we should ignore the how the most successful teams are built. If you had identified a more efficient / effective approach like Tampa has utilized this could potentially make sense. However, your plan is to utilize the most inefficient practice of all for player acquisition. The only teams that could claim sustained success are the Yankees and Dodgers who operate in an entirely different realm given their massive revenue advantage. Even their history has clearly illustrated the value of building from within. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. I don't know about you but I would seek to learn something from how Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa built their teams. Players don't hit 600 and teams can't win 90 every season. Expecting perfection or something close is not even remotely reasonable in this scenario. Outperforming all mid and small market teams is a reasonable goal. The acquisition practices that have led to success are an excellent indicator of best practice. I made it even more direct by comparing the acquistion practices that produced playoff teams. What makes sense is to study what practices have been utilized by the most successful teams. You are suggesting we ignore the facts because they don't support your position.