Major League Ready

Do you consider Tampa Bay foolish? TB has had (8) 90-win teams in the past 20 years. 41% of their WAR produced in those years where they won 90 or more was produced by players acquired as prospects. They actually produced less WAR from the draft and International Draft combined. See chart below. BTW ... The low revenue team with the most 90-win seasons is Cleveland. Their ratio is actually a couple percentage points higher. The theory that this is a foolish practice is derived from ignoring history. 8 Tampa Bay Rays WINS Drafted Intl AaP Trade FA 100% Tampa Bay 2021 100 24.5% 5.9% 54.0% 0.0% 15.6% 100% Tampa Bay 2023 99 13.8% 9.8% 66.2% 0.0% 10.2% 100% Tampa Bay 2008 97 45.7% 0.0% 33.2% 4.5% 16.6% 99% Tampa Bay 2019 96 18.6% 0.0% 45.8% 9.0% 26.0% 100% Tampa Bay 2010 96 64.7% 0.0% 22.1% 9.1% 4.1% 100% Tampa Bay 2013 92 50.7% 0 28.6% 8.5% 12.2% 100% Tampa Bay 2011 91 61.5% 0.0% 33.0% 5.5% 0.0% Tampa bay 2018 90 18.6% 0.0% 45.8% 9.0% 26.6% Tampa Bay Total 95.13 37.3% 2.0% 41.1% 5.7% 13.9%

You mean losers like the 2024 Brewers who won 93 games, traded away their Cy Young winning pitcher and went on to the best record in MLB in 2025 and then traded their top SP. How did they get acquire that top SP BTW. Oh yes, he was acquired as a prospect. Of course, then you have losers like the Guardians who have been the most inclined of any team in MLB to make this type of trade. Those losers have more 90 win seasons than any team in the bottom half of revenue over the past 20 years. Why not spend 20 minutes to validate your position. All you need to do is pull up a successful team on Fangraphs, sort by WAR, and their acquisition method is listed.

You really should take a look at a few winning teams in the bottom half of revenue. There is plenty of variability in how they were built but in aggregate, players acquired as prospects account for almost as much WAR as drafted players. They account for more than double the WAR of free agents and triple the WAR of established players acquired in trade. You make this statement repeatedly. I tell you to go look at you obviously don't care to be encumbered by the facts. Try actually looking at a few teams like last year's Brewers team. Half of their most productive players were acquired as prospects.

The cool thing about baseball is occasionally teams really surprise us. That said, I would be right there with you placing a sizeable wager on the under. Honestly, I think they are taking the path of least resistance. They can pray for absolutely everything to go right and sell at the deadline if it doesn't. Probably not the best plan and they take on considerable risk but either Falvey convinced ownership or ownership dictated this direction. Either way, more pursuit of mediocrity.

There is no point if your goal is to get from 72 wins to 75 wins or whatever the realistic outcome of this team would project to achieve. The REALISTIC outcome is definitely not a contender If you are trying to build a contender, the point is adding players like the prospects Milwaukee received can elevate a team for 6-7 years. They do so in a very cost-controlled way which given the revenue disparity in the league is absolutely critical to below average teams. The point becomes very obvious if you look at the practices of the most successful modest revenue teams. Last year 7 of Milwaukee's top 14 players by WAR were acquired as prospects. One (Yelich) was acquired as an established player. None were acquired as free agents. The 24 Guardians had 9 players that produced greater than 1.5 WAR. Five of them were acquired as prospects. The Rays 100-win team in 2021 had 14 players that produced over 1.5 WAR. 3 were drafted, 1 International, 2 free agents, and 8 acquired as Prospects The answer is obvious if you take a look at how other low revenue teams have built their rosters. BTW ... Peralta was acquired as a prospect. They got 6 years of service from him and now they have acquired a player(s) that could reasonably be expected to give them 6-7 years. If that happens, their net result is 12-13 years of productive service by giving up 1 year of service. It should not be a mystery why the standard practice for Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Tampa.

The question is how much more would the Mets have paid for 2 years vs 1 year. Do you think they could have gotten Tong? I see he did not fare well in his first exposure. What are your thoughts in terms of what they could have done with the Mets. Williams and Tong or Reimer possible or am I being a homer? Maybe there was a deal to be made with us adding Ober to Ryan or similar to get the position players we need going forward.

They stop half-way through the process and then tell us they don't do half-measures. This is the worst case scenario. We lost players that could not possibly be replaced in free agency given they were much cheaper than it would cost to replace. They killed any chances this team had in the near future and now they are diminishing the team's chances long-term. What they are doing is pleasing some fans short-term. Many fans here were pretty adamant about not rebuilding even after the sell-off. However, that short-term satisfaction will be gone by July. The sell-off will be accepted. It sure seems their thought process is they buy acceptance from waiting until the deadline. The cost is not that great if Ryan/Lopez perform and stay healthy. Of course, they risk getting nothing if Ryan/Lopez have significant injuries. That risk would be warranted if they were going to invest heavily in this team but there is no indication of said investment. I am going to hope this works out but you have to believe we could have gotten Williams and Sproat. Thise guys will be contributing this year. This was a wasted opportunity.

IDK about Lopez because there might be some questions about his health, but don't you think the Mets would have given a little more for two years or Ryan over 1 year of Peralta?

If the Mets were willing to give up Williams and Sproat for 1 year of Peralta, what would they have given for 2 years of Ryan. Williams probably still headlines. Do they get Tong instead of Sproat or could they have gotten Reimer or Clifford added. I would do the deal for Williams / Sproat and Reimer and felt pretty good about it. Now imagine adding the 3rd pick next year and whatever we could get for Lopez. How do you like our future in that scenario?

Milwaukee just got Jett Williams and Brandon Sproat for 1 year of Peralta. You would have to believe the return would be really significant for 2 years of Ryan. Maybe those guys bomb out but this is how a team with Milwaukee's budget competes. 6-7 years from these players can be an enormous boost to a franchise. If the twins are a 500 team they don't really give up much for the opportunity this type of trade provides.

Now, that's a big if!

About 3 years ago I put together a list of the top International signings over a decade plus. What I found was that the very top guys were generally speaking a very bad investment. The next tier (800K-1.8M) actually produced better results. Of course, I am going back 15 years so the $800K equivalent is probably 50% more. After putting that information together, I would not sign the very top guys. Of course, we are talking about roughly 40 players. On one hand it represented literally 100% of the top signings. On the other hand, it's still a small data set. The next 40 could be different but I having done this, I would spread $5M over 4 or 5 guys over one guy at 5M.

The Japanese players are an entirely different situation. We are not talking about 16 y/o kids. They are already playing in a professional league. There could perhaps be some tweaks to that system but it should remain separate because that situation is so different from signing international amateurs. I am with you that an international draft would be a far better system for those amateurs.

You make an interesting point. I assembled a chart to try to envision how this would work. (see below) Let’s say the other teams were really ruthless and went after the top 7 given they need 8 votes to veto. If you took 100% of the revenue from the teams above the 7th ranked team in revenue you would gain $703M. (see below) The effect would be to know 4 teams back considerably. If you look at the bottom teams, there are 14 teams that have the most significant disadvantage. $703M divided between 14 teams is $50M/Team. I guess the question becomes would that 2nd tier of teams feel it was advantageous for them to knock back those 4 teams when they would be to bring 14 teams closer to their revenue level. Of course, they would all have to agree or they would not have 8 votes. They might be wiser to only go after the top 4 teams in terms of securing the necessary votes. That would produce a significantly smaller pool of roughly $342M or $24.4M team. Of course, the teams would have to pay player benefits out of that pool of money. The net would be around $21.6M/Team. Not real impactful but it would help. This would require the owners flat out take the money away from the Dodgers and Yankees. I am not sure that a 75% majority would be willing to take it from them given $21M team is not going to produce parity or anything close to it.. LA vs REV League Aggregate 1 Los Angeles Dodgers 752 0 258 2 New York Yankees 728 24 234 3 Chicago Cubs 584 168 90 4 Boston Red Sox 574 178 80 5 Philadelphia Phillies 519 233 25 6 Atlanta Braves 510 242 16 7 Houston Astros 494 258 0 8 San Francisco Giants 448 304 703 9 New York Mets 444 308 10 San Diego Padres 432 320 11 Los Angeles Angels 410 342 12 Texas Rangers 406 346 13 Toronto Blue Jays 387 365 14 Seattle Mariners 379 373 15 St Louis Cardinals 373 379 16 Baltimore Orioles 366 386 17 Cleveland Guardians 336 416 18 Milwaukee Brewers 335 417 19 Arizona Diamondbacks 328 424 20 Pittsburgh Pirates 326 426 21 Washington Nationals 325 427 22 Cincinnati Reds 325 427 23 Minnesota Twins 324 428 24 Kansas City Royals 324 428 25 Detroit Tigers 320 432 26 Colorado Rockies 318 434 27 Miami Marlins 317 435 28 Tampa Bay Rays 297 455 29 Chicago White Sox 277 475 30 Athletics 257 495

I don't have a strong opinion on this one but keeping them separate seems like it would make sure the talent was distributed as intended. However, the current system allows the league to provide teams with slightly different bonus pools. If they combine the two drafts, the larger bonus pool would be an interesting opportunity for more parity because, that advantage now applies to the entire draft.

The owners were talking about an international draft during the last CBA. I understood that to be separate from the Rule 4 draft which I think makes sense. Combining them complicates the process and makes it more difficult to change down the road. Are there any issues you are thinking of that a separate international draft would not resolve?

If they are going to pretend to compete in 2026, in other words keep Ryan/Lopez, they should trade Ober so that they can dedicate another spot to someone who could someday contribute to a playoff team. Go with Ryan/Lopez/Bradley/SWR/Matthews. Add two free agents RP to Sands / Funderburk / Topa and Orze plus two of Festa / Ohl / Morris / Adams / Klein. Orze could be replaced by any other these five. Prielipp and Raya have not demonstrated they're ready. They can compete with the three among Festa / Ohl / Morris / Adams / Klein that don't make the roster. That's pretty decent depth that should be able to step up when the opportunity presents itself.

Me neither. I don’t have a good answer. While I agree the owners created this mess, the players are contributing significant obstacles to them cleaning it up. The most pragmatic way for them to narrow the gap is the luxury tax. However, the MLPA took a very hard position on the luxury tax during the last CBA. As I am sure you know, half of that money goes directly to players and the other half goes to lower revenue teams. At one point in the negotiations, they were also trying to get the revenue sharing decreased. I don’t think there is a realistic way to actually get anything close to parity. This model and its flaws were developed a long time ago. Based on the last CBA negotiations the owners are far more willing to initiate changes that would at least mitigate the disparity. The MLBPA fought hard to maximize the disparity. That’s quite an obstacle. It’s also understandable. The MLBPA’s charter is to maximize the player slice of the pie. I would guess parity and the good of the game is not a high priority. The game is healthy enough to pay individual players hundreds of millions. Parity is not a concern for the MLBPA.

I don't think this is remotely true. Most league‑wide decisions require a ¾ vote. Some require unanimous consent, especially when they materially change the economic rights of individual clubs. Asked Copilot and got this ..... 1. The MLB Constitution protects club property rights Local revenues are considered club property, and stripping them would likely require unanimous approval or a constitutional amendment — not just a majority. 2. High‑revenue teams would never agree Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Mets generate enormous local revenue. They would fight any attempt to redistribute all of it. Even reaching the 23‑owner threshold would be nearly impossible. 3. The MLBPA would immediately challenge it The union would argue that such a change alters the economic landscape in ways that affect player salaries, requiring negotiation under the CBA. 4. Antitrust exemption limits MLB’s antitrust exemption is narrow and does not protect owners from lawsuits over internal economic coercion. A forced revenue seizure could trigger legal challenges from within the league. 5. Broadcast contracts Local TV deals are individually negotiated legal contracts. Owners cannot simply vote to void them.

Jax was 31 this year. Do we think he won't be valuable the next two years? Ryan and Lopez both turn 30 next year. Would it be inconsequential to give up the final year of control for both Lopex and Ryan? I guess it would be inconsequential to trade Prielipp's final year of control for 3 weeks in 2026 if Prielipp is not very good but if he turns out to be really good that's an exceptionally poor value proposition, especially in a year they are highly unlikely to contend.

I was thinking the same thing. You may recall that last year there was similar chatter they would need to cut certain players because many people were certain that payroll was going down from 2024 levels. Of course, that did not happen.

So, it's not just me?

It's Jan 15th so there is still time but it sure looks like the kind of "half-measures" we were told Joe Pohlad would not pursue. This looks like an attempt to stay close enough in the standings to keep fans engaged. Unfortunately, the cost to future teams is probably considerable. My guess is that they play the "were keeping Ryan/Lopez and Buxton" card until the deadline when it will be easier to convince fans they need to sell off.

I have heard members of baseball media say something like team X does not have much in their pipeline for a given position on many occasions. While you may assume it means they have an ample supply, others commonly and correctly in my opinion describe a pipeline to be what a team has coming regardless of how great, poor, or somewhere in between that pipeline happens to be.