Major League Ready

Minor leaguers will have spring training but you still ask an interesting question. I am guessing they are thinking Winder is ready. Ober was a bit of a surprise. Do they have someone else in mind? I doubt they rely on AAA guys right out of the gate. We will see more SPs signed. Don't ask me who but they are surely not done.

ANY business can afford to pay $X for employees. Teams are spending on other types of employees now. Businesses don't just spend a bunch of money on additional employees and accept they will make less net profit. They shift how their personnel dollars are invested. In this case, revenue is going up. Teams are using some of that additional revenue to invest in other types of employees.. Players have been the beneficiaries of consistent revenue increases for a very extended period. This provided teams with financial resources and they use this increased revenue to compete for the services of players. Teams don't need to pay what they are paying for players today to retain them. If available revenue was cut by two-thirds, salaries decreases would follow. In this case, the teams have invested in an alternative resource which leaves a little less to spend on players.

There is no excuse IMO for public funding. These businesses generate plenty of revenue to pay for their own stadium. I can see some subsidy given the benefits they provide. This happens with other types of businesses. They should pay for it like any other business pays for infrastructure .... with the revenue generated from the business. The biggest benefactors of this practice are the players. If teams had to pay for their "buildings" like any other business those funds would come out of revenue and the amount of financial resource available for player salaries would be reduced by the amount paid for facilities. Players salaries would be far lower if public subsidy did not pay for their stadiums.

The cap and floor model is far more workable when revenue disparity is modest. NFL teams are all basically within $100M with the exception of of one team (Dallas). With the disparity present in MLB, a modest ceiling would promote huge profits for large market teams and a floor presents a rather substantial challenge to profitability for small teams. The players are going to fight a ceiling that promotes competition because they want those excess profits paid to free agent contracts. The small-market owners are going to have a real problem with a substantial ceiling. This is a tough one to get agreement on.

I already had the 3rd link you provided highlighted. Everyone here should read this article if they want to have a quick way to get educated on MLB salaries and team spending. The great thing about this article is the author made the effort to get input from a couple different college professors of economics. An interesting tidbit ... The economists cited have consulted for MLB and the union. According to these professors, MLB is representing the numbers accurately which means the union is misrepresenting the facts according to these economists.

I am going by a couple interviews I heard on MLB radio so I don't really know what the norm other than we know all know ALL (not some) teams are investing in analytics and player development. Some no doubt more than others. I do know that 100 people come with salary plus, payroll takes, health plans and other benefits . It does not take a real expense employee to get to a total expense of $100K. Multiplied by 100 is 10M/team. Of course, they also need office space, travel, computers, cell phones, etc. IDK exactly what we are talking about but ballpark ... I would estimate we are talking 4% of revenue for the Twins. Therefore, if a 50/50 model was viable 10 years ago, the equivalent today would be 54 / 46. My point here is for the players or us to ignore these changes in team investment is select intellect. I can understand fans not really computing the impact of these changes. However, the union is either making this statement for public affect or they are very poorly prepared to understand what is a viable proposal or for that matter what is available to them.

Apparently, you were not paying attention when we had more playoff teams in 2020. Having more teams in the playoff race keeps more fans engaged. It also encourages more teams to try to contend which promotes free agent interest. Players also get paid for playoffs and I would sure hope they want to participate in playoff series. To paint this as negative takes real resolve in being negative. DHs make an average of over $9M according to the articles I have read. So, yes they roster count is a net zero but they will replace much lower paying bench jobs. It's also generally considered good for the game. There is no perfect solution to tanking but a lottery at least contributes. You also ignored they offered a Salary floor which combined with the lottery would discourage tanking and generally promote a better product. Good for the game, good for the fans, and good for the players when view objectively. Why are we talking about the first offer (180M) when the offer is now 214. Seems you are trying real hard to put a negative spin on what is actually happening. You completely ignored the fact that the union has contributed nothing. You also ignored the increase in minimum pay. You ignored they offered free agency at 29 1/2 and you ignored the union spit in the face of small market teams asking for a reduction in revenue sharing.

I agree. If the agreement was made it would become very public and the league would not go back on it. However, what I am floating here is what would prevent a contractual setting of salary levels as you stated? If they wanted to include that the teams all give X dollars to charity, they could do that, right? So, why can't they contractually agree to reduce bonuses while increasing Milb salaries by $200M or whatever number is agreed upon?

I understand where you are coming from. That said ... What would stop the two sides from agreeing to form a contract outside the CBA stating that IF the league instituted a salary structure of X, they would agree to the bonus structure I suggested. It is their legal right to enter into such a contract, is it not? They don't have to represent Milb players in order to make a contract. Who would challenge such an agreement? Perhaps a different question is more pertinent. If these two parties are responsible for negotiating a bonus structure, why can't they negotiate a pay increase? I am not a lawyer. I am asking what would prohibit such a pact? Who would object?

MLB would extend the current CBA tomorrow. It is the players who are unwilling to accept the status quo so you are starting with a badly flawed presumption. Also. the lockout has absolutely ZERO impact on the ability of the sides to negotiate so your argument makes no sense even if not for the fact it is the players demanding more. The only thing the owners are asking for is more playoff teams. How is this bad anything but a positive for everyone, especially fans? The player’s two primary demands are to shorten control and decrease revenue sharing. This increases revenue disparity and moves premier free agents to top revenue markets a year earlier. This would be terribly unfair to fans of half of the teams in the league and greater competitive disparity in bad for the league. They also want arbitration to begin in year 3. The owners proposed a system that … • Eliminates qualifying offers and remove Draft-pick compensation attached to any free agent which is obviously good for free agents. • A Draft lottery similar to the one used by the NBA to discourage tanking • Adds universal DH which would add 15 jobs for hitters in the NL / ave salary for a DH in 2021 was $9.2 million. Obviously a plus for players. • An increase to the minimum player salary. Obviously a plus for players. • An increase in the CBT threshold • A minimum team salary. Obviously good for players. Every element of MLB’s “radical proposal” is beneficial to players. The majority of what the players want would widen the disparity in revenue and therefore discourage competitive parity. The draft lottery, universal DH, and minimum team salary all great for the league and players. Eliminating the qualifying offer, increased minimum pay, and increased CBT all good for the players. The players feel the hundred and two-hundred, and three hundred million dollar contracts are not enough and they are unwilling to play under these horrendous conditions.

The might accept a cap if the floor was crazy high. However, the bottom teams can't afford a $125M minimum. At least not when they are losing. Half of the league was below $125M last year. Instituting such a system would cut team values by 75% for the bottom revenue teams. How would you feel about that if you are Derek Jeter. Who would ever want to own a team in a small market with this type of system? How about the fans. Would you want a system where we were forced to sign mediocre vets to huge salaries? It's not like we can manufacture more great FAs. We would be forced to play them instead of the prospects that could eventually bring us back to contention. Didn't we all want to play prospects last year when the season was lost?

I would take a fair amount of work to model a system and determine the impact so I am not sure exactly what the numbers should be. However, Rookies should not make $550K in a world where a single players is getting paid over $40M/yr. The balance of the system is weighted far too heavily to top free agents. So, why is the core of what players are asking for all about free agency and taking away revenue sharing. Does Boras really have this much influence?

I think the owners would gladly accept a compensation system in the new CBA that reallocated bonus pool money to Milb salaries. In other words, the new CBA would set salary guidelines that included these funds into Milb salaries. Why would owners care. This would be relatively easy. You have to ask yourself why the emphasis on such a small portion of players. Those bonuses benefit a relatively small portion of players. In this case the system is benefiting the players who will eventually become the highest paid players, At least in theory. Seems like another Boras influence. All they need to do to right this system is pay them when they actually earn it at the MLB level. Playing baseball should not have to be a financial struggle for any Milb players given the amount of money in the game. They could make life much better for Take 80% of the already existing bonus pool and pay it out in salary. That money would fund (roughly) an additional $60K in salary for all players. The goal should be a system that pays $100K at the AAA level. I modeled a system that started at a $1M bonus at 1/1 and decreased by 2% for each pick until it reaches 30K. The end of the 2nd round is $250K and it gets down to $30K after the 6th round. It's really a matter of taking care of everyone or only focusing on top picks. Like I said, seems like another Boras influence. Lety's pay them when they earn it and eliminate financial hardship for all Milb players.

Chief, I have a new found respect. Most people fall into ethnocentric alignment. In other words, they identify with labor before management so they take the players side and ignore the things the players are demanding is bad for parity and bad for the sport. We fund these salaries and you considered what's good for fans. Bravo! Owners are only lookout for their own best interests but their best interests are the interest of the game. The demands made by players indicate they are either clueless as to what's good for the game or they just don't care. While they say they want to get players more in the early part of their career, their proposals focus on things that are good for the highest paid players. Looks like the Boras effect to me. I bet the owners would accept .... Minimum salary of $1M / 1.25M / $1,.5 M for the 1st 3 years. A salary floor where the difference between the floor and minimum is divided among all prearb players. The amount could be a running 3 year average to allow teams to adjust to their build cycles. The 6 year free agent status is something MLB owner should never change for the sake of parity. I thought their proposal on this item was more than I expected. One final note ... I am with you on Milb pay. Quit giving out $7M bonuses to unproven players, They will get it when they prove they are worth it. Take 80% of that bonus bonus money and put it into salaries so that all Milb players make a good living. This practice would add roughly $60K to whatever they are earning now. AAA players would/should make $100K.

There was a time the split was close to 50/50. Business models change and the change we have seen in MLB is teams spending far more on analytics and development staff. I have read that some of the teams have added 100 employees in the past handful of years. In other words, teams have shifted some of that 50% being invested in players to other types of staff. The players are ignoring the changes in the industry.

The players would never accept a cap and they want to decrease revenue sharing.

Their demands demonstrate they either don't understand the impact of their demands on the game or they don't care. I was listening to MLB radio today. To sum up what they said ... What the players say they want to promote is not consistent with what they have proposed. Taking $100M for revenue sharing is not in the best interest of the game. They obviously don't care. They want to put the money back in the big market where they believe it will be spent. A much better solution is to create a floor. An even better solution would be to send any difference between the floor and actual back to the players, specifically prearb players. Their complaint is the money is not being spent. This not only assures it's spent but that also solves another issue of getting more to players early in their career. 5 years of control is also bad for the game. It's most detrimental to the smallest markets. It's also certain such a policy would increase supply which would counter the financial gain they hope to create. It certainly does not appear they have considered the impact of these policies. They believe it will be financially advantageous. Therefore, they are fighting for it. The irony is that what they want would ultimately hurt the game which will in turn hurt players income long-term. Let's keep in mind that the policies of MLB and their promotion of the league has made MLB players the beneficiaries of the most prolonged / astronomical pay increase seen in any industry for any group of individuals ever. Look at the spending the last month and how can we come to the conclusion the current system does not provide enormous opportunity for players. They do need to pay more to prearb players. They could do something along the lines of $1M / $1.5M / $2M for the 1st 3 years. Plus, institute the floor with proceeds to prearb players

Trea Turner / Tim Anderson / Xander Bogaerts / Danby Swanson are all FAs next year. Of course, there are few others but these 4 would be good long-term solutions. We are not getting Turner away from LA so let's call in 3 good options. The best case scenario is Lewis or Martin step up and that money gets allocated to pitching.

The lower the revenue the more inevitable the need to go through complete rebuilds. The process necessitates teams clear out veterans and play prospects. How much complaining was there here when Simmons was getting innings or complaining about bringing up Miranda. We wanted this because it was good for the future of our team. The other flaw in the floor concept is good free agents are not going to bottom teams unless the money is considerably greater. Great for the players, bad for the team and bad for the game to prevent these teams from rebuilding. Now those really bad teams get to see 66 wins instead of 60 while not being able to play prospects. Then, if they get a Chris Davis and there are many, their ability to add pieces when they are ready to compete will be impeded. That's why I suggested any amount below the floor go to prearb players. What the players want is to assure every available dollar is spent on players. Teams want to rebuild. This strategy satisfies both desires. I believe the NBA has a similar penalty. The point here is that we simply cant force players to sign with bad teams and we should not force bad teams to adapt poor strategies. It also won't change the dynamics and economics that drive teams to trade players in certain situations. Tampa would either have to let players go a year earlier or abandon the strategy that has made them successful.

I don't give a crap about them either. What I do care about is parity, the health of the game and our team being able to compete. Shorter control will no doubt hurt the game and the players don't give a crap about the game or the fans in mid and small markets who will lose them even earlier. Their interest is in getting more money which leads to an interesting question. Will the owners really payout more because players become FAs earlier. Is that going to change their budget? All it will do is give the large market teams an additional year with many of the top FAs. What they should so is put in a salary floor like the NBA. I believe NBA teams payout the difference in the floor to players. What MLB should do is split any amount under the floor among all the prearb players in the league. I don't know how you magically get FAs to go to Baltimore the last couple years so require them to distribute the difference to the lowest income players. Also, raise minimum salaries to at least $750K or perhaps $750/850/1M for the 1st 3 years. I would also quit paying out huge draft bonuses. They have not earned anything yet and if they prove to be great the pay will be there at the ML level. Instead make the top bonus $1M and decrease every pick by something like .5% until you get down to 25 or 30K. Then, use all that left over money to increase Milb pay. The available funds would provide roughly $60K additional to all Milb players. They could have a 70K/80K/90K/100K progression through the Milb levels.

Part of this was a tying error. I would not make sense to say luckily the Twins are far below. I meant to say luckily they are not too far below average. However, the market size argument that is made so frequently is misguided. Market size does not pay the bills, revenue is all that matters. St. Louis is a smaller market yet they produce 25% more revenue. Miami is a much larger market and they produce less revenue. If you want to believe the revenue advantage Boston / LA / NY / etc has does not impact the ability to attract and pay for free agents you are welcome to that opinion. I guess you would not like your income to double because it would not make any difference. However, the history of free agency very clearly points in a different direction but go ahead a stick to that theory. I have no idea what you are talking about with 2019 revenue. The Twins had $300M in 2019 and the Brewers $295M. The had nearly identical payrolls. However, one year fails to paint an accurate picture. The Twins averaged $120M from 2017-19 and the Brewers averaged $72M. It also does not make sense to just compare 1 year of the Rangers when they had 3 sub 500years in a row. The revenue numbers include revenue sharing so I am not sure how you can make a case that revenue sharing makes up for the revenue disparity. Really, arguing that teams with 100, 200 even 300M in incremental revenue don't have a distinct advantage is an absurd argument.

It will hurt any team in the bottom half or revenue. Luckily, the twins are too far below average. The owners already offered more than I thought they would with the model they presented. I don't see them going further because it would be bad for the game to further an already decided advantage that the larger markets have in signing free agents. I don't think that advantage is fair at all. I also think MLB players are among the most fortunate group of employees in the history of mankind. Had the average American's pay grown at the same rate over the past 50 years, Average Household Income would be $3.2M. It would say their deal in general is most fortunate.

I sure hope they don't budge on team control. The big markets already have a huge advantage and shortening team control would hurt our team and several others and the game itself. Why would any Twins fan want shorter control?

Revenue and salary are not the only two relevant variables. Teams are investing much more in developmental positions, analytics staff, and other positions. For example, the Cardinals have added 100 positions. That's the way it works, when any business finds a given type of talent is more productive per dollar spent, the spending shifts to the more productive employee.