Major League Ready

Eddie's BABIP is lower this year because he is making a lot of weak contact even when he is ahead in the count. He isn't swing at balls 16" off the plate this year. Consequently, he is striking out less. He also isnt getting anything to hit because pitchers know they can get him to swing on borderline pitchers or even pitches off the plate when they are behind in the count.

I agree in concept, Nick. However, I am not so sure his poor performance is a product of "diminished skills". He still stings the ball when he gets a hit to pitch. Of course, thats not too often. While he has quit swinging at pitches 16 inches off the plate but he still swings at anything close even when he is ahead in the count. Therefore, pitchers have no reason to give him anything to hit even when they are behind. He ends up with a lot of weak contact. Most of the time when he is ahead it's because the first two pitches are no where near the zone. Then, he swings at anything close instead of getting a good pitch to hit. I think he would be significantly above league average if he had average plate discipline. He has demonstrated he is either unwilling or unable to apply an approach that gets him decent pitches to hit. My guess is Rooker and Cave take his playing time next year until Kirilloff or Larnach show they are ready. At least we have Rooker for LH pitching the rest of this year.

I share your desire to get a look at Duran but I understand the team not relying on a rookie SP. Yes, there are success stories but I want to F/O to play the odds. Specific to SPs, the percentage that come up and have immediate success is quite low. Most of the immediate successes are top 30 type prospects and even then many fail at first. Duran is intriguing but not quite that level. It would also be a different story if Pineada was not a week away from returning. Again, I would like to see Duran too but it's not hard to understand why the FO is not taking the path.

If you recall, many beat this same drum with Berrios and Burdi. Some even said they would be our best pitchers. Berrios had an ERA of 8 his first season and Burdi was no where near ready. Many great pitching prospects struggle at first even if its just their first few games. The Twins are electing to avoid that risk when every game is critical.

He did not "work" the count. Bieber missed badly twice with two pitches that never looked like they had a chance at being anywhere near the strike zone.

He has been slightly better this year but still so bad that pitchers are going to abuse him. I have only seen one well stuck ball this year. That was the HR against the cardinals and the pitcher missed his spot by 18 inches and left it right where Rosario likes it. It has still been very rare to see Rosario get anything decent to hit because he is either unable or unwilling to make pitchers throw him anything that gets much of the plate. The league has adjusted. He was fantastic the 2nd half of 2017 and the 1st half of 2018. He was so great opposing pitchers pitched him very careful. They learned there was no need to give him much to hit and that he would chase wildly with 2 strikes. Now, everyone knows they can get him to swing at anything close in pretty much any quadrant of the zone. That's just too much for anyone to cover. The only difference I see this year is that he is not chasing the stuff that is way out of the zone. He will need to improve his approach significantly beyond what we have seen so far if he is every going to get back to anything near the last half of 2017 / 1st half of 2018. I would rotate between Rosario and Cave until one of them wins the job.

I was frustrated with Sano in 2018 but I never saw the point in selling low on him. Then, last year his transformation in terms of plate discipline was thoroughly impressive. I love that he got it together and he deserves a little early patience. This lineup will really be a killer if Sano and Donaldson get it going.

It makes it harder to drop hits in front of OFers if they don't have to worry about covering the deepest parts of the OF. Some gap power on occasion will keep the OFers honest.

I agree completely that MLB players are paid enough that it would be reasonable to redistribute some of the wealth. However, MiLB players are not represented in the CBA and I don't believe the players are willing to fund a pay increase for MiLB players. This adjustment would have been made long ago if they were willing. I doubt this is going to change. You also managed to completely ignore the core of my point which is we would lose VERY few players. To suggest there is not enough money in MLB to attract the best talent is absurd as is the argument they would dissuade athletes from baseball. There is no downside to the game in redistributing the bonus money. The downside is to the players getting the big bonuses. I have a hard time feeling bad for them when the individuals that live up to the big bonus are going to get paid in a monumental way. Why do we need to protest players getting big bonuses that never earn them. It's also not fair that some guys get huge money for NOT making it to the MLB level while others get payed millions.

The percentage of athletes that can make it as professionals in more than one sport is less than 1%, especially if we are talking about elite players in multiple sports, I would add that kids don't start out playing a sport because they plan to be a MLB player. They start playing for fun and the individuals with the requisite enormous talent to play at the MLB level are identified in HS and given scholarships or they are drafted. You are also ignoring that under a more modest bonus structure all players would be making a decent living. They would not need to be subsidized by someone supporting them. This removes a significant impediment If you are looking for a way to make baseball accessible to everyone. I believe that was the point here. This would allow the players who don't get the big bonuses to pursue a baseball career and they significantly outnumber the big bonus players. We might lose one player every 2 or 3 years out of the fist 3 rounds because they have a better offer in another sport. Small price to pay for all of the other players getting payed a significant wage, IMO. It would not have been much of a loss if Kohl Stewart had decided to play football.

I posted the same thought in a thread about MiLB pay. It would take significantly more than a 1/3 cut. Of course this would depend on the targeted compensation. However, I don't see the problem. If players with big bonuses live up to those bonuses ... they are going to make a pile of money. So, why are they getting paid before they live up to it. It would be more equitable in my opinion if all MiLB players got paid better and the ones who make it get paid big once they make it. I actually built a model so that I could look at various structures. All MiLB players could get an average increase of $28,000 for the season based on the assumptions below. * 1st pick gets $1M bonus. * Subsequent picks go down by 2%. * 25 rounds * Bonus for rounds 6-15 = 20,000 * Bonus for rounds 16-25 = $15,000 Of course there are many tweaks that could be made but the point is your point is substantiated based on these assumptions. We can adjust the top amount and the rate if decrease to adjust the amount for later rounds or an even greater increase in salary.

Any news on Chalmers control? It seems like his success or lack there of is going to be determined by his relative ability to control the strike zone. Sure would be nice if Johnson can help him find some consistency.

I agree for 2020. I am not so sure for 2021. It depends on if we get the 2017 and 1st half of 2018 Eddie or the 2nd half of 2018-2019 Eddie. If we get the latter in 2021 Cave + a wise investment of the roughly $10M delta between Eddie and Cave probably yields more significant value. However, I still think the most likely scenario is they hold onto Eddie through the end of his contract. However, it could come down to which Eddie shows up this year.

This is a fair assessment and I agree he is most likely here through 2021. However, the losses resulting from Covid-19 will result in players being non-tendered we would not normally see. This year could determine his fate with the Twins but I suspect they hang on to him allowing the Twins to assess replacements during the 2021 season. It's probably the ups and downs that causes the variance in opinions. He had a coupe stretches over the past 5 seasons where he was great. Rosario had an OPS of 870 and a wRC+ of 127 for the 2017 season through the first half of 2018. That was good for 5.9 war over that year and a half period. In the past year and a half, Rosario's OPS is .752 and his wRC+ is 93. That would not be bad for some positions but it's pretty poor for a LFer. His WAR during the past year and a half is 1.3. IMO, the cancellation of the MiLB season made it more likely he will be retained. It would have been pretty easy to let him go (trade or non-tender) if one of the prospects would have forced the issue this year. That could still happen but it doubt it.

Rosario is an average MLB player. I would like to think the floor for Kirilloff and Larnach is average MLB player and both have the potential to be well above average perhaps even all-star level level players. Obviously the floor for any prospect is to not even make it to the MLB level but the likely floor for Kirilloff and Larnach is considerably higher. The team is far better off in the long run investing in other assets as opposed to Rosario when we have players that will likely be as good or better than Rosario on the verge of being ready. That might not be until 2022 but that will,be determined over the course of 2020 and perhaps 2021. It's entirely possible they keep Rosario next year while they audition his replacement. KIrilloff / Larnach / Rooker and possibly Celestino will all get their chance to displace Rosatio. The best case scenario for the Twins is that one or more of them bursts on to the scene in a big way.

I heard the same thing on one of the MLB radio shows on Sirius Radio and I thought it was generally accepted this language existed. If this is the case, MLB was following the spirit of that agreement while the MLBPA simply ignored the parts they did not want to abide by from start to finish. Based on the numbers I ran, MLB was being very fair with the 72 game proposal but the players stuck too "100% prorated and a number of games that simply was not even remotely feasible. I am at a loss as to why the MLBPA should not be held accountable for this failure IF this language exists. I actually kind of hope this is litigated so the facts come out. My gut tells me there was some misconduct. Frankly, I would like to see the guilty parties held accountable if that's the case. Lot's of jobs outside of players and team employees were impacted. The parties involved need to be held accountable.

Doc, IMO, one side or the other bares more blame. They either had an agreement to negotiate terms if fans were not present or they did not. If not, why were the owners presenting options at less than full prorated salaries. If there was no agreement to negotiate terms without fans present, the owners are not only at fault, they should be held accountable for games lost and be required to pay the players for those games missed as a result of their "bad faith" approach. If there was an agreement to negotiate terms if fans were not present, the MLBPA basically elected to ignore the parts of the agreement that were not in their best interest. If there was an agreement to negotiate terms in the event fans were not present, the owners offers and actions are perfectly reasonable. If such an agreement was in place, to say the MLBPA's handling of this situation was in bad faith would be putting it mildly. One side ignored the March agreement. That side is at at fault. I hope a legal action is filed because whichever side ignored that agreement should be held accountable. The facts will be transparent if legal action is taken.

Actually, the original agreement specified terms if fans were present. They agreed further negotiations would be required if fans were not present. That's what the league attempted to do. The MLBPA decided to ignore that part of the agreement. Unless "we want 100 percent" is negotiating, they really never attempted to negotiate. That's why we are where we are. The part that really chaps my ass is the whole "we don't see the economic need to negotiate. Based on the $3B revenue estimate, players (including draft bonuses & International) would receive 97% of the revenue. This includes taxes and benefits. We don't need to know much about operating costs to understand playing would result in more loss than just canceling the season. To suggest they can't see an economic need is absolutely absurd.

This battle is not about the guys making league minimum. Their piece of the pie is 3.6% of total player compensation. You have elected to focus on the players just starting their career and then comparing that to the accumulated earnings of someone with 30, 40 or even 50 years of experience. These individuals represent a tiny percentage of the population yet you ignore high income players in making a comparison. The top 100 players average 20.7M. What do you suppose they will make over their career? Let's also keep in mind most players are retiring at 35 and most owners go on to work another 35 years in accumulating their wealth. I would appear that some of you subscribe to the theory that what is fair is determined by how much wealth someone has accumulated. Maybe it's just me but fair is not determined by the size of someone's bank account. The owners tried to focus the cuts on high income players. o what you are saying is that an unfair resolution

It would appear that you confuse revenue and profit using them interchangeably. Teams earned a collective profit last year of a little over $1B, depending on the source. Players earned $4.4B or roughly 4 times more than owners. Do you understand that the owners pay all of the expenses, hundreds of non-player employees, advertising, payroll taxes, pensions, medical, etc? BTW ... It is absolutely common for top earners to take a pay cut when a company or industry falls on hard times. A pandemic is about as extreme as it gets. Had we been able to get a half season in revenue would have been roughly 1/3 of normal and expenses about 2/3 of normal.

I don't think the MLB players worry too much if the MiLB players are getting their fair share. The union seems to pretty heavily favor the stars so their objections might be the high profile prospects not getting a giant pay day before ever playing a MLB game or MiLB game for that matter. Regardless, the salaries would be stipulated as part of the new structure or CBA. Therefore, there would be no question the MiLB players would get the money.

I have also wondered why the league takes the image hit when they could pay MiLB players quite well with the money they are already spending. I used 80% because I wanted to give all the players a $5K raise. Maybe your 40% number would be more acceptable to the MLBPA or perhaps somewhere between 40-80%. IDK but this sure seems like it would be great way to take care of ALL MiLB players.

They need to quit giving unproven players $5M or $6M or $7M signing bonuses. If they live up to the bonus, they are going to make huge money over their career. The problem is not one of payment but distribution of payment. Too many guys who don't pan out get huge bonuses. Take 80% of the bonus money and put it into MiLB salaries. That would allow for an increase in MiLB pay by an average of 5K/month per player. BTW ... I built a quick model. This still allows for a $750K bonus for the top spot and then decrease each spot by 2% for the 1st two rounds. 4%, 6%, and 10 percent decreases in rounds 3-5. 25K for rounds 6-10 and 15K thereafter.

For me, determination of fault here is heavily weighted by the existence or non-existence of an understanding to renegotiate player compensation if fans are not present. I think the players were told one thing but the evidence strongly suggests there was an understanding terms would need to be defined if fans were not present. If this understanding existed, the owners were acting in accordance with that understanding. The players at every turn demanded 100% which obviously had blatant disregard for renegotiating if fans were not present. So, who here believes that the original agreement did not address the need for different terms if fans were not present. Do you believe the owners agreed to pay the exact same amount to players regardless of revenue level with a likely $2B reduction in revenue if fans are not present?

Ted, Obviously, the team have a huge loss for the 1st half. They absorbed all of the operating cost with virtually no revenue. This has been reported as being roughly $60M per team on average. We could debate that number but let’s just look at the 2nd half and see what the likelihood of recouping any of that “red” number. We have two numbers that we can verify with relative confidence. One is that in stadium revenue is about 40% of total revenue. The other is that player salaries + taxes & benefits are roughly 52% of revenue. Therefore, your conclusion teams are not operating in the red for the 2nd half of 2020 (not 2020 as a whole) requires that operating cost not exceed 8%. If we include draft and International bonuses, I would guess MiLB operations alone are greater than 8%. Of course, teams are spending much more these days on player development, analytics, technology, etc. The Cardinals went from 240 to 400 non-player employees. Travel, hotel, equipment. Target field upkeep, advertising, etc. I don’t have a problem believing teams operating costs are roughly 35% as reported by Forbes and Statistica. It does not matter, we could conclude those folks are incompetent fools and that operating costs are only 25%. Your conclusion will not operate in the red for 2020 suggests you are not willing to view the situation objectively. I will happily apologize if you can someone support that operating budgets are less than 10%. That still would not negate the 1st half losses but as Chief suggested, it is not necessary to have the financials to understand there is no way 2020 does not result in big losses for teams.