Major League Ready

That's not the point. Putting so much emphasis on the immediacy of the return is very bad asset management. Tatis did not contribute for 3 years after being acquired. Would they have been better off had they traded for an SS that would have been with the club in a year? In this case, a legit #2 in two years would be a much better return than a #4 at the start of next season.

Good thing the Padres did not think that way when they traded for Tatis.

I looked at this a couple years ago. Definitely not one $4M guy. The $1-1.5M dollar guys have done as well or better than the $3M+ guys. My guess is forty 100K guys would net better odds too but that would take some effort to figure out. The approach they are taking this year is basically 1/2 on more modestly price premium guys and the rest spread out among many players seems like a pretty ideal compromise..

I sure hope they would not trade any assets with long-term value for ANY player controlled for 1 year. It's not going to happen because it's really bad asset management unless your only goal is to get to 500 in 2022. Oakland has the best winning percentage and the most 90 win seasons of any team with below average revenue over the past 20 years. Why? Because they understand asset value. How did Oakland acquire Bassit and Manea. The traded a rental (Zobrist) for Manea and 1 year of Samardzija for Bassit and by the way the got Marcus Semien in that deal too. Now, they are going to flip these two so their return for a half year of Zobrist and a year of Samardjia is 6 seasons with Manea and 6 seasns with Bassit and 5 seasons of Marcus Semien. Plus, whatever they get if they trade them. Now, that's how you manage assets and produce great results in spite of being among the lowest revenue teams in MLB. The fact they would do this should be a good indication we should not!

The issue is not your analogy. The issue is how you have defined the problem. The Twins need to build an entire staff including a couple front of the rotation types if we are to have a reasonable shot at reaching the playoffs and then having a shot at post season success. Signing 3 back of the rotation SPs when you don’t have any front of the rotation SPs is a really bad plan. One, we will be bad. Two, we will assure this mediocrity continues by minimizing the opportunity to develop the numerous pitching prospects that are ready or will be throughout the course of 2022.

Sounds about right. They have lots of time to trade him. If they wait Donaldson might end up being moved and they get more time to evaluate Miranda/Martin & Lewis. I expect they wouldn't move him unless they really liked the return.

I didn't ask for opinions on specific changes, I asked if they needed to be part of the CBA. Viewership is declining. There are a plethora of issues that need to be addressed. I am wondering which issues would be part of a CBA.

Interesting take you have. I guess I missed the part where owners are asking for "more money" Their one ask is for a couple more playoff teams. 50% of the gate goes to players. Given they spend 85-90% of revenue on operations and players salaries, where do you suppose most of the additional revenue will go? Operating costs are not going up as a result of adding more playoff teams. Not everyone would agree but the year we had expanded playoffs kept a lot more fans engaged. The one thing they asked for is good for the players and the game. Players on the other hand, have asked for less revenue sharing and a significantly higher competitive balance threshold. They are also insistent upon reducing the length of control. All three bad for the game. The owners have offered an aged based system of control that would be beneficial to players who don't get to free agency at an age where they can really cash in. I don't know how anyone can suggest the reason we are in this position is because players want more. If the players were willing to extend the status quo we would be gearing up for spring training. This is 100% about the players getting more and I would like to see that in years 1-3 but the MLBPA has put no emphasis on these players and have been fixated and unwilling to move off the 3 primary demands listed above. The aged based free agency is a nice add too.

I have yet to meet a business owner or senior executive in the private sector that was not concerned about revenue. Are changes like banning shifts / pitch clock or electronic strike zone part of the CBA?

I posted this idea in a different thread. The goal would be to distribute more of the revenue sharing pie to teams receiving revenue sharing based on how much they spend more on payroll. Instead of distributing it to teams that are not spending it on players, distribute a greater portion to teams that are spending. If teams were to get more revenue sharing if they spent it, you have to believe they would spend more. This would put lower revenue teams in a better competitive position. This would be good for the game, the fans, and of course the players.

Have to agree. It has been very evident from the start of this process and long before that the MLBPA is not representing their majority of players. They are fixated on terms and conditions that favor a relatively small portion of their members. Does anyone believe their motivation for decreasing revenue sharing by $100M was about competitive integrity? The intent of the combination of reduced revenue sharing and increased CBT is about as simple as it gets. Give the big market teams $100M of revenue sharing back and raise the competitive balance tax enough so that they will assuredly spend the entire $100M where small market teams will not. Their actions suggest they don’t care a bit about competitive balance. Yet, a lot of people buying this load of crap. Here’s a newsflash… That subset of players we would consider starters (not stars) that reach free agency before age 30 are doing phenomenally well. The players are either victim of misguided leadership or they all are hoping one day they will earn land a contract that provides generation wealth and they are willing to go along with practices that are very focused on the top 10-20% of players. I guess they can take that chance. Nick Punto made $23M over his career and an equivalent player starting their career now would make $30M. That player can retire in their mid 30s, buy a 2 million dollar home and a $10M of rental property, pay someone to manage it and take home $600K/year plus their pension and medical is paid for life. If that player got a nice draft bonus they can buy a private plane and a nice summer home too. They should focus on some type of policy to curtail service time manipulation, raising compensation in years 1-3 as much as possible and granting free agency based on age or the current system, whichever comes first. If they were really smart they would also change the distribution of revenue sharing to include a component based on player payroll. Adding the DH and a couple playoff teams would also be financial gains. Add them all together and their already extremely fortunate position gets even better.

If that's all he would bring, I agree. However, if he is good as we all think, why wouldn't he bring back a Jordan Balazovic type SP prospect or a 50 or 55FV type SS prospect? If we really think Lewis of Martin will stick, the focus should be pitching but I just don't see justification for any deep confidence one of those guys is going to be our SS for 6-10 years. While I don't see anyone ready to take his place opening day, we have several guys that could be even better in that utility role. Martin / Miranda / Julien or even Lewis if he does not stick at SS.

A high upside pitcher? IDK. An established guy. No. A good prospect? Probably. The general theme is trying to trade for someone to help this year, like Montas. I don't see that is probable even if the Twins were looking to invest big this year. Their actions seem quite clear that 2022 is a reset year. Not surprising given they have a boatload of pitchers ready and a t least two position players (Miranda / Martin) on the doorstep. The A's or anyone else trading an established SP is going to look for high upside prospects, not a player like Arraez. IE. the Berrios trade. Montas is a great comp although he would be for 2 full years. I would be shocked and disappointed if they traded away to prospects the caliber of SWR and Martin. For what, so we could win 78 games instead of 75?

They already have a bunch of prospects that profile as back of the rotation or bullpen piece, I would not move Arraez unless it's for a SP with higher upside or a legit SS prospect.

Arraez was 142nd among position players in Fwar last year. Let's not get too carried away with his trade value or any suggestion that he could not be replaced.

No. They are not going to trade Arraez and add prospects so that they can be a 500 team this year. The entire premise and line of reasoning revolves around the theory they must go for it this year when all indications are they are playing the long game. My guess is the only way they trade Arraez is for a ML ready or close to ready SS or a high ceiling pitching prospect.

Good point. I didn't realize he had a player option. It's not a great solution to begin with so this takes it off the table.

He has no trade value or probably negative trade value so we wouldn't need to give up anything. That said, he is a decent one year solution.

They have plenty to work with if the parties are reasonable. I would think the players could get a substantial increase in perarb salary if they emphasized it. They already have been offered what IMO is a very good offer for service time. If you listen to any of the national shows most of them thought there was any chance service time would change because of the competitive disparity already present. While I agree with you neither side is concerned with tanking, I do believe this CBA is an opportunity to distribute more of the revenue sharing pie to teams that spend more on payroll. I have no problem with the current rebuilding practices. However, the premise of revenue sharing is to provide low revenue teams with the ability to close the gap a bit on spending for free agents or keeping players. If they don't utilize the money for players, give it to teams who are spending. You can't elevate Pittsburgh to a reasonable level of contention by spending an extra $30M or $40M free agents. However, if Milwaukee were to get more revenue sharing if they spent, you have to believe they would spend more. Now you have put a lower revenue team in a better position to compete. Of course, more money is spent on players. Expanded playoffs would provide another pay raise. Obviously, those teams share in the gate. That's not the major gain. Teams spend 85-90% of the revenue they generate. Most of that playoff revenue is a net gain for the players. Higher minimum / age based FA / Redistribution of revenue sharing and expanded playoffs. That's a lot of gains for a group that's already the best compensated group of humans on the planet. So, why don't we have an agreement?

St. Louis let Pujlos walk which was a great decision. I am not suggesting Berrios is going to be dead weight like Pujlos was for the last 5 years but letting a player go is not necessary inconsistent with the approach you are advocating. It aids in the development of the steady stream of young talent you reference.

The offer the league made was more than I thought they would do. Being fans of a mid market team we are all well aware of the current level of advantage held by the top revenue teams. I am surprised they were willing to budge at all and even more perplexed by fans that lobby to elevate that advantage. Even the advantaged teams would not go along with increasing the disparity. It's already to the point where it is eroding fan interest. My guess is that we end up with something very similar to what they have proposed. What I find interesting is that the players believe this is going to have a significant impact on spending. I seriously doubt that's the case. Part of the reason for evaluations / team value being so high is that it's relatively easy to team's to control cost and adjust costs. Are the all the sudden going to ignore profitability? Any change would be quite modest. The only thing shortening control will do is put the best free agents in top markets a year earlier.

As always an insightful point of view. I hope you participate more frequently. The MLBPA has not represented the majority of players. Their demands generally favor the guys already making huge money. It appears Boras really does have this much influence and a lot of players are going along with not realizing the emphasis on demands that benefit a minority. Increasing the amount paid to prearb players would help. There are a lot of AAAA guys shuffled back and forth so the teams are not going to inclined to grant a huge increase in 1st year salary. The players should push for a nice increase in the year 1 minimum and heathy increases in years 2 and 3. That gets more money to players early in their career and helps out the lower tiers of free agents. It also has helps a little to increase the amount spent by rebuilding teams.

Sounds about right to me other than I don’t think the union would cave quickly even if replacement players were brought in. I have wondered about the point you made regarding would the owners want to the union to go away and I also contemplated would the game we be better off. I am not a lawyer either but the first question is what would prohibit the league from adopting a set of guidelines similar to the CBA provided those guidelines did not violate anti-trust guidelines. If the exact same agreement was used without a union in place would it all the sudden become illegal? IDK but you would think the teams could agree to operate as they have under a CBA. Then, again, I am not a lawyer and even if I were I doubt this could be answered with certainty. Hopefully we never have a covid situation again but that situation illustrated the added complexity in resolving problems when a union is involved. For example, had there been no union, the teams could have offered two-thirds pay for anyone that wanted to play. Anyone who did not want to work for 2/3 pay could have sat out the season and we would have had 100 or 120 games. The game faces other challenges that will require change. Would it be easier to resolve without the players holding up changes as a bargaining chip. There is also the matter of the union pressing hard for some things that would not be good for the game. We are in this situation because the owners are only willing to reduce team control after a certain age. The demands to eliminate revenue sharing while at the same time significantly increasing the luxury tax threshold. There is no way around it, these three things would be bad for at least half of the teams and bad for baseball in general. Therefore, under the assumption teams could and would form an agreement very similar to the CBA, I don’t see why they would be concerned about the union going away.

It's crazy that 8 guys are interchangeable in terms of making a case for their rank in the organization but I have to agree. I was already really excited to watch Milb baseball this year and this series has elevated my interest. Thanks Seth! Great series. In terms of ceiling I am thinking Duran / Canterino / Balazovic / Ryan but they would be reversed in terms of probability of reaching their ceiling. Does this seem accurate in your opinion?

This would be great. It's hard to pull of ML ready pitching with this much control.