Major League Ready

As I review the actions of both sides over the past year, I find it very difficult to conclude all the fault or even the majority of fault resides with ownership. Let's review what happened. The MLB clubs kept on virtually 100% of their employees knowing they were going to get creamed financially. How many companies did the same? Owners paid all Milb players in full even though they did not play a single game. Even the ones that were going to get cut. The Pohlad’s donated $25M in spite of the inevitable losses. The Players said screw the pandemic, we don’t care revenue is going to be off 50%, we want 100% for every game played or we are not playing. The really did not negotiate at all which is why we ended up with 60 games. The owners made proposals that would have given us at least 80 games. The players insisted on a number of games that was not even feasible. They countered every offer with a number of games that was not feasible resulting in a 60 game season. I believe the last offer was 82 games but the players would have gotten somewhere around 80%. Which side was thinking about the fans? Then, the MLBPA portrayed the owners as acting in bad faith because they were not living up to their agreement to pay prorated salaries. While leaking documents is not the ideal approach to getting the truth out, it turned out the two sides had agreed in no uncertain terms that the preliminary agreement assumed fans were present. There was an agreement to renegotiate if fans were not present. The MLBPA not only negotiated in bad faith, they purposely mislead the public and probably even the players. I guess it’s ok the defraud the public as long as you are doing it to make rich people look bad. This article is just another example of extreme bias. Let's blame ownership because they are not like us. What’s worse is the prejudice that is displayed here quite consistently. By prejudice, I mean hatred and the opinion one side should not be treated fairly because they belong to a given group. It’s probably not quite as heinous as hating or basing bias on color, sexual preference or any other distinction but it’s repugnant just the same.

It might be easy but what is it based on. A lot of projections these projections are based on a wish that spending be $X. Budgets are developed based on a revenue projection. I have seen evidence any of the projections here are based on revenue projections. I understand to a degree. Does anyone know how much revenue is going to be impacted? IMO, the team’s projections could change by $10s of millions over the next 60-90 days. This 10% cut in payroll is the equivalent to a 5% decrease in revenue. How many here think revenue will be down by 5% or less? What’s the most likely case scenario? Are we going to play 162 games? Let’s say that best case scenario comes true. When will fans be back? It’s not going to be day 1. Let’s say they are back after only 60 games which would be extremely fortunate. That’s 37% of the season which equates to a $44.4M loss in revenue. Who here would cut their spending by $15K if they knew they were going to make $45K less this year? I sure hope they spend $125M or more but the current revenue outlook does not support it..

While I agree in general, we would have really been misled had the MLB not leaked the infamous memo. The MLBPA was very broadcasting everywhere that the MLB owners had agreed to pay prorate salaries and that they were negotiating in bad faith by presenting other offers. Fans (including me) and the media were starting to come down hard on the owners. As it turned out, the two sides had agreed in no uncertain terms that the preliminary agreement assumed fans were present. There was an agreement to renegotiate if fans were not present. Had that information not come out the MLBPA would have gotten away with exceptionally misleading communication. It looked like the owners were just ignoring their agreement when it was the players who not only ignored the agreement but they were also purposely misleading in their communication.

Don't worry, your prejudice was evident.

Your right “people” (individuals) sell things off. Companies with viable assets borrow against those assets. MLB teams took on substantial debt to pay for their operating losses last year. https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/mlbs-debt-8-3-billion-2020-season-coronavirus What's interesting is that the borrowing that took place is clear evidence of how much team's lost, There are still people insisting they did not have operating losses. Scott Boras claimed very recently that MLB made less profit but they did not have losses. It does not take exceptionally advanced financial skills to know this is NOT true. Therefore, Boras either is not all that financially sophisticated or he does not mind making statements he knows to be false to advance his cause. I am betting on the latter.

That street runs two ways. If an average salary of 4.43M is not adequate or the working conditions too harsh, perhaps MLB players should find another form of employment. I think they have fared exceptionally well compared to the rest of us. If the median income of Americans grew at the same rate as MLB players over the past 50 years … the median household income would be $3.17M. Median household income is actually 68,703, a little less than 2% of what it would be if income for all Americans grew at the same rate as MLB players over the past 50 years. Had MLB players income grown as the same rate as other Americans since 1970, their average salary would be $95,775. In other words, MLB player income has grown at a rate 46X greater than the average American since 1970. To suggest they have been treated poorly is rather fanatical thinking IMO. Any reasonable person adjusts their spending if their income takes a substantial hit. This is pretty straight forward stuff that anyone here would agree to if their circumstances were such. However, owners try to circle the wagons and somehow a portion of fans can’t understand why they won’t spend like nothing has changed.

What job is more fun than being a professional athlete. By your logic players should be willing to work for about 5% of what they get paid. Seriously, if they got paid 1/4 of what they get paid that would be an average of $1.1M per year. How many would chose to do something else. Less than 1%? Professional athletes in major sports are the most fortunate individuals on the planet.

It's there fault they did not plan for a pandemic? Are all of the restaurant owners poor business people? Baseball owners are not savvy? The guys who became billionaires are not business savvy? The people that grew this business in a wildly successful manner for the past 30 years don't get it? Fans expect them to run the business like a charity and then assume they are ignorant when they don't run the team the way the would. We have a pandemic and people expect status quo. The problem here is not owners lack of understanding.

What you have provided here is not remotely adequate in determining profit or loss. You have numbers from a previous year and the only expense you are citing is player’s salary. What about operating expenses. You know … the hundreds of employee’s and all the other operating costs. You also misrepresented loss associated with not having fans in the stands. Ticket sales are 30% of revenue but that’s not the only revenue lost when fans are not present. There are numerous sources that have reported that on average teams acquire 40% of their revenue from fans attending games. You bias appears in the article title. To presume teams are trying to drive fans away is a self-indulgent response. It’s a freaking pandemic. Not S*** there are ramifications we don’t like. It would also be nice if you offered numbers that only tell both sides of the story. Try look at player salaries adjusted for inflation and their income has grown exponentially more than any other group in the US. Since 1980, salaries have increased 30X. Income for the average household income went up roughly 4X which is roughly the rate in inflation. Were we feeling bad for the wages MLB players made in 1980? I would say MLB players have fared quite well compared to the rest of the world. How about a $4.4M average per player? That’s 80X the average American. We have pitchers making $1M per start. That’s the equivalent to 20 years for the average person. The average MLB player makes 8X more than the next highest (Nippon) league in the world. MLB players have the same options the rest of us have. They can go work elsewhere if their compensation is not adequate. Greed is present throughout the sport. From Fox Sports to the Owners and the players. Let’s be real, most players want every dime they can get. They are probably the greediest of all the groups benefiting from the revenue gains MLB has experienced. To put it on one group is blindly biased.

I did not know of this rule. Got a feeling it's going to be 10,000 in the not to distant future. They probably agreed to raise capacity by a given date as part of the MLB Affiliation agreement.

Her can state whatever he likes. The only way a team would go along with that venture is if he actually signed one years deals. Any team making a $150M investment is not going along with his statement. You However, you just might have the hook. Promise him a start ever 4 days if he signs for 1 year.

Grading the trade at this point is pretty tough for me. Alcala is a ML pitcher. However, is he a 7th inning guy or a set-up guy or a closer? IDK. If he is a set-up guy by next year, I will take 4 years of a set-up guy for 1 year of a closer any day. I say one year because losing Pressley for the last couple months of 2018 had no consequence to the team. I really do not find his loss in 2019 all that consequential. The team won 101 games and Pressley would not have made a difference in terms of playoff results. Winning 103 vs 101 games with the same result in the playoff is not what I consider impactful. I am not sure what to think of Celestino. He was very good the 2nd half of 2019. He was one of the prospects I was most interested to follow in 2020. He might be a 5th outfielder or he could be solid starter. Where he lands in those extremes would significantly change the grading of this trade for me. If Alcala is a high leverage RP for 4 plus years and Celestino becomes an average CF, this was a great trade. If neither one of them pan out the opportunity cost was high but the impact is still quite modest.

They had a phenomenal offense in 2019 when all three were starters. Kepler was 6th in WAR among RFers .2 WAR behind Bryce harper. Polanco had .4 less WAR than Lindor and made the all-star team. They were somewhat of a contender. Better pitching and they would have been a serious contender so your position does not make much sense IMO.

I think you were on an interesting path had you compared these players contributions to winning back to back Central titles. However, I don’t know how we can come to the conclusion Rosario lead the 2019 Twins to a division Championship? He was 11th in WAR, not for the entire team, just among position players. His OPS wRC+ was 103. Sano 137, Kepler 121, and Polanco 119. If we are talking about “leading” the Twins, Cruz and Garver were the offensive leaders. 2020 was an odd duck. The only offensive star was Nelson Cruz with a wRC+ of 164. Rosario was at 110 and Kepler 107. A 110 wRC+ and below average defense is not leading a team to a division Championship. I would say the pitching staff led the effort to win the Central in 2020. What if Sano/Kepler and Polanco were arbitration eligible? All three would have been hard calls. Sano the most likely to be non-tendered because that position is easiest to replace. Kepler is 1 year removed from a 4.4 WAR season and he provides back-up in CF. He is also 1 ½ younger than Rosario and had been trending up until this crazy year. He likely would have been tendered a contract. Polanco is probably the most likely to have been tendered a contract because he plays a premium position and he too was great before the Covid season.

Donaldson was not a Twin in 2019 but he was healthy and produced a 900 OPS over 659 AB. He could be a big boost. How about Sano? His OPS went from 923 in 2019 to 757. He was a beast in 2019. Not so much in 2020.

2 keys …. 1) Team spending is going to be a product of how each team assess the impact of Covid on revenue. Dateline did an hour special on Covid Vaccines a couple days ago. Dateline interviewed CEOs of the three companies closest to distributing vaccines. The FDA rules on Pfizer's drug in 2 weeks. IF APPROVED, distribution to font-line health workers and senior care facilities would start immediately. Mass distribution to the general public won’t happen until mid-year. Administering all of those shots will take months so the full impact won’t be felt until the end of the year. 2) Company budgets are a product of projected revenue. Based on Dateline’s report, I would guess the Best case scenario is gate receipts are down by 1/2 which is roughly $60M. Businesses NEVER spend the same when facing revenue reductions of this scale. Neither does any responsible adult when managing personal finances. We can dream but this dream is not coming true.

Above Hendricks and Hand? MLB trade rumors estimates were 4.3-5.7M which is about the same as what they had for Taylor Rogers. What do you think it would take to get him? I am thinking about reworking my plan with him in it.

We had a front office this resembled these remarks and most people here felt (correctly) the game had passed them by. It's just not nearly that simple and it never was that simple. Team's have become much better at evaluating potential and sustainability and I don't would like our team to among the most sophisticated in their analysis as opposed to the most simplistic.

IMO this is an over simplification. We know $$ are going to be a little tighter this year. You are not accounting for the dollar difference between Rooker and Rosario being redeployed. Rooker and $10M toward Odorizzi >>> than Rosario or Rooker + Tijuan Walker + Clippard (type) >>>> Rosario.

I hear ya Doc but let's at least look at this from a couple of angles. 2020 is not a great basis of comparison. Let's use 2019 when the team was great offensively as our basis of comparison. Since then we added Donaldson and Rosario was pretty average with a wRC+ of 103 in 2019. Do I want to put a rookie in the 4 hole? No! However, I think one of the Rookies can do that or better than 103 and I think we can find a suitable hitter for that role. Perhaps even Cruz because we have several guys that could hit 1-3. Perhaps we add someone like Schwarber who had a really bad 2020 but so did some other really good players. He had an OPS of 871 in 2019 and 823 in 2018. He might even make more sense than Cruz if he is the bridge to Larnach/Kirilloff.

Moving AAA here is big. For starters, it has to be advantageous in terms of really knowing what's going on in terms of managing the final stages of development for players that reach this level. Of course, it also makes it much easier to give guys that are close a look for a few days or even utilize them as an expanded roster.

I am focused on production after the trade deadline in 2018 because I believe what occurred at that point is particularly relevant to Rosario's value. The league adjusted and Eddie has demonstrated he has no answer. Since that period of time. Kepler has been better offensively and considerably more valuable defensively. Since 7/31/2018 Rosario / Kepler HRs – 45 / 45 wRC+ 99 / 114 OPS - 774/889 wOBA 321/342 SLG – 477/479 RBI – 164/130 Kepler is better in every category with the exception of RBIs. Kepler takes better ABs. Kepler does not throw to the wrong base. Kepler does not make stupid base running mistakes. Therefore, people are not frustrated with Kepler like many of us are with Rosario. I thought it went without saying that Kepler's considerably higher WAR was a product of defensive contribution. That was meant as just one factor why some of us are more satisfied with Kepler vs Rosario.

The criticism of Rosario is recent. Rosario was truly great for a half season but he has been mediocre at best since the 1st half of 2018. His horrid plate discipline, base running errors, and defensive mistakes make him a target for criticism. Kepler has none of these issues and his offensive numbers are better than Rosario's over the past couple of seasons. Kepler is a more complete player and his WAR is more than double Rosario's WAR over the past two seasons. This is why Kepler is not criticized IMO.

Great post Doc. I was looking for the "double like" button. The Dodgers have exercised patience and in doing so put a great product on the field for several years before winning a WS. They are also positioned to be great for the foreseeable future. It would sure be nice to not to go through stretches of 90-100 loss seasons. The Dodgers did not trade away any top prospects until Mookie Betts which is as about a sure thing as you can get. Take a look at how they developed this roster and you find 3 position players that would probably result in posts here accusing the FO of dumpster diving. I am referring to Turner, Muncy and Taylor. The other top position players before Betts arrival were home grown. Bellinger, Seager, Pederson, and most recently Will Smith. Of course, they have Gavin Lux waiting in the wings. They have not produced quite as many pitchers as Cleveland but they have been much better than us. Kershaw and Buehler are elite. May and Gonsolin look like he is going to be quite good too. May was a 3rd rounder and Gonsolin was a 9th rounder. Urias was an international draft at $450K. Not cheap but not a big dollar guy either. This is how you build a consistent winner. The twins can't afford to keep players like Kershaw and then pay for Betts while way over spending for Jansen. However, we would have a great team if we drafted, developed, and found a few under valued players like the Dodgers have over the last several years.

The failure rate / production of top free agent RPs has been extremely high and the market is going to adjust.