Major League Ready

Right Ted. They have been the most successful business people in the country in spite of your assumed complete ineptitude. If only they had your exceptional financial acumen and business aptitude. So, as someone with business skills superior to that of ignorant MLB owners, tell us how you would resolve the present dillema. That dillema being cancelling the season costs on average $127M per team according to reports. Therefore, cancelling the second half costs roughly $63M. Playing at full wage for players costs $80+ billion. I would love to hear why they are the idiots you portray in your comment.

According to the CDC, there have been 459 deaths in the US of people 35 or less. While this is obviously not insignificant, it is most certainly not "of historic proportions, at least not for the age demographic of 99% of the players. The coaches and some of the training staff are actually the most at risk. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

I agree with the general sentiment that the players need the game more than the owners. However, I don’t believe fans are accurately assessing what each side will give up to play this season. Players will give up part of their salaries but they will be better off financially by playing. Obviously, they won’t get what they normally would have but $100K or $1M is better than $0. I don’t see a scenario where fans will be allowed to return soon enough or at levels that will allow the teams to break even. In other words, they have already agreed to a scenario where it costs them to have a season. That cost for the Twins is probably $20M+ over what they have already lost if the players we paid at full rate. The point at which I would blame this on the owners would be if they demanded a profit to resume the season. For example, if they wanted to recoup the losses they have already incurred. I would go so far as to say I even expect them to resume as long as the losses are modest. They have met that expectation. Some players are stomping their feet. Basically, they want every dime they would have got without a pandemic. However, I don’t think Blake Snell’s perspective is shared by all players. What I would like to see is the players given the option to play based on the 50 percent of revenue that has been offered. They should be given the option to sit out if they are so inclined. It should be noted that less than one half of one percent of Covid-19 deaths are people less than 35 years of age.

I have already said participation should be optional. However, to suggest the owners should just accept whatever additional loses result from playing the season while players receive full comp is not only extremely bias it's the kind of thinking that will assure we don't have a season. There are quite a few players who have already made far more than they can spend in their lifetime or their kids lifetime. I could see many of them opting to take no risk. However, anyone does not think this mostly about money, they are incredibly naive. If the owners would agree to pay full compensation, 90+ percent would play. I find prejudice in any form repugnant. The hatred some people demonstrate solely on the basis of someone being wealthy is no less distasteful than prejudice based in and other form. Judge the person by their actions not the size of their bank account. I bet their are plenty of owners who have no prejudice and treat people exceptionally well. We should all strive to do the same.

I guess I should not be surprised to see a fanatical response. Who is asking them to go back for "1% of what they earn". We get it ... your point of view is that players should not suffer at all as a result of a pandemic. Owner should just accept losses no matter how massive. The owners offer is perfectly reasonable. I don't expect the owners to incur even larger loses than they would by just cancelling the season. So, If rejected, I hope the league offers any player who wants to play the chance to play at the rate offered and then use replacement players to fill the roster. If you don't want to play, their are plenty of MiLB players who would love the shot.

I think you are right. Perhaps players should be allowed to opt out of this season if they don't want to assume the risk. Let MiLB players fill those spots. However, to say the owners should just eat whatever losses come from playing this season while players are guaranteed 100% of their normal compensation is an exceptionally prejudiced thought process. Just a thought ... There are a hole lot of people happy to go back to work for 1% of what the average MLB player earns.

Bravo! Finally someone looking at this logically rather than emotionally. I was listening to MLB radio yesterday and they were waxing on about how the players should not have to take anything less than full compensation. My first thought was along the same lines as your first sentence. Passing judgment without even knowing the numbers demonstrates a point of view developed from bias. Normally, we could estimate revenue pretty accurately. In this case, we don’t know when or if fans will be allowed to return. The Twins TV Revenue is roughly $40M/yr or roughly 15% of last year’s revenue. Of course, there are other sources outside of attendance but gate receipts have to be in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the team’s revenue. No fans equates to total revenue of less than $50M for the Twins. Am I missing something? Half of player salaries would be $70M plus whatever it costs for travel and other operating costs. There is no chance owners are going to accept an agreement that potentially increases what they have already lost this year. I don’t think the player’s hang-up is the 50% number. Best case scenario is fans return in limited number for what would be the last quarter of the season. Accepting a revenue split would mean players would very likely take a substantial pay cut. From an owner’s perspective, it is highly unlikely a 50% revenue share will produce any profit. I would assume their desire to play this year is motivated by long-term concerns starting with maintaining fan support.

I spent 25 years evaluating strategies for large companies. Never did one base their expectation or desire for profits on previous earnings, That concept gets batted around frequently by fans but it has no basis in reality in the real world. We could make the same type of statement about players. Their compensation is absurd relative to the rest of the world and we have no problem when they look to maximize their earnings. Somehow the same logic is not followed when assessing the actions of owners.

It does not sound to me like you see both sides at all. The Twins TV contract is under $40M/year. That won’t even cover costs for non-player employees, coaches, and other operating costs much less player costs. Most teams are going to lose a bundle without gate receipts if players demand full compensation. So, if you want to see baseball, you better hope players decide they are willing to get compensated based on this new reality.

Boston did not find a team willing to give more because 1 year of Betts is not worth more than they received. Also, consider Boston is not going to compete this year so how much value did Betts really hold for them? What they showed here is that they are not interested in being mediocre so they sacrificed in a year they won't compete to amke themselves better for several years yo come. Kind of like the Yankees did when they got Torres. They also reset the luxury tax which will position them nicely in pursuing free agents. They get 5 years of a guy who could be an all-star in Verdugo , a SS top 100 prospect, and a catching prospect that can play 2B/3B. He could be a very nice utility player. All of this for 1 year of Betts in a year they won’t compete. I guess it’s an F if you have a very short-term view and fail to consider Boston is not likely to compete this year. Long-term this deal was a solid B+ for Boston and an A- if Downs becomes an average regular. They get a solid A if he becomes an above average regular.

Analysts generally look at profitability as a percentage of various metrics. Revenue and Return on Capital being the most common. However, that has little to do with the point I was trying to make. Many people get upset without a solid basis for judgement. IMO, fans could save themselves some frustration if they were willing to make an objective comparison to other teams.

I think you may have missed the point. Including the level of profitability gives us a relative sense of spending capacity. It makes absolutely no sense for me to accuse you of being frugal if I don’t know your spending capacity. If we don’t know profitability, we can’t have a meaningful discussion on the Twins relative ability to spend. We also can’t have an informed discussion on the Twins relative willingness to spend.

Didn't they also say they used previous year's revenue back when they floated the 50% premise? BTW ... 2018 payroll was 51.% of 2017 revenue.

I appreciate you using a trusted source. However, we should include the level of profitability (16M) report by Forbes. The norm is to use generalizations about what percentage of payroll the team can spend which is a poor practice. Profitability is not only a better measure of spending capacity, it’s an indicator of willingness to spend. The Twins were far below league average in terms of profitability. In other words, they were more willing to spend and take less profit. Yes, their revenue increased in 2019. Given the increase in spending, it would appear that once again they are willing to spend a greater portion of their gross margin that almost any other team.

Actually, the trade between LA and Boston ended up being independent of the Twins. The value of their trade for the most part will be determined this year given Betts is a FA at the end of the year. Of course, it is possible Price pitches well for 3 years and contributes to LA winning a world series. The Dodgers have had a long world series drought than the Twins. I would assume that weighed heavily on their decision to give up a couple good players for a rental. The trade with the Twins could take a few years to grade. LA gave up a player that was not particularly important to their success for a guy who could be an impact player. This could be a huge win for them with little possibility of the trade ever having a significant negative impact for the Dodgers. Plus, they get a decent draft choice.

Has the low level prospects mentioned by MLB trade rumors been identified? Is this a Player to be named later?

Are you complaining that we are not the very best team in all of baseball? I sure had a lot more fun last year watching 100 wins vs 100 losses. Are you in any way surprised that a team with roughly $400M more in revenue than the Twins signed the most expensive free agent SP in the history of the game. I gotta tell ya ... I am going to focus on watching a very good team for the next several years. There is nothing anyone can do about the fact that there are a handful of team with a huge revenue advantage.

I think stacked is a little strong. They have a fair number of decent pitchers. It's interesting to look at how that staff was acquired when evaluating the Bailey acquisition. Bailey would be the highest paid pitcher among those players who contributed the most last year in terms of WAR. Hendricks – 3.8 WAR / 1 yr5.3M Montas – 3.0 WAR / pre-arb / Acquired with no ML service time. Anderson – 2.0 WAR / Acquired as a FA @ 1/5M Fiers – 1.7 WAR / Acquired as a F/A @ 2/14M Bassit – 2.1 WAR / 2.25M / Bassit was the type of trade many here would absolutely despise. The A’s traded an established player (Smardzija) and Michael Yona for Bassit and Semien when Semien had 324 ML PAs. That’s how you move the needle for several years. They built their staff with the type of moves that many here would ridicule and label dumpster diving.

After reading through 100 posts, I was thinking the same thing. I would add that using this capital for a top of the rotation guy is a great idea. Unfortunately, the teams that have those guys have playoff aspirations and they are not trading them. I find it hard to be bad because we did not get a player that's not available. I won't be mad until such a player is traded, proving there was actually such a player available.

I think this is stretching reality. We have 2 very good OFers (Kepler & Buxton) and a good OFer (Rosario) who will be gone by 2022 for sure and perhaps next year. Cave is a good back-up and could even take the Escobar path and grown into an above average started but how knows. Is Wade a player anyone here wants as an everyday OFer? Go ahead and trade him but he is not bringing anything that resembles what we need in a SP. That leaves us with Larnach, Kirilloff, Rooker, Raley and Lewis. Lewis would be more valuable as a SS given that is a problem area right now. Let's hope Lewis becomes our SS and Polanco moves to 2B. Arreaz can become a utility player or perhaps he could be traded. Larnach and Kirilloff are at least a year away unless they really kill it the 1st half of 2020. I think Kirilloff is actually our 1B replacement and Sano goes to DH / 1B / 3B once Cruz is gone. Raley and Rooker are close. If either one or booth of them can bring some pitching ... Great! I just don't see our outfield situation blocking anyone with perhaps the exception of Rooker and Raley.

Sounds about right but we need to replace 10 players at the end of 2020. That's not feasible from within. It would appear they will need to use free agency to fill some holes.

That must make the Cruz signing an F because he was 38 when they signed him. Power ages well. Donaldson was a lot better risk than RYU IMO. I like the Avila signing too. Darn good back-up and he takes quality ABs. Resigning Castro would have been fine too but I bet he was holding out for a multi year deal and we should have a prospect ready to step into that role next year.

Rooker is the one most likely to be impacted by the Donaldson acquisition. He would have gotten a shot at some point this year if Sano was not moving to 1B. Kirilloff is probably still a year away. It would not be shocking if he tore up AA the 1st half of the season and that would have been more likely to get him promoted had Sano not moved to 1B. However, I still see him as the most likely 1B at some point in 2021 and doubt his timetable has changed much. Larnach is probably not impacted at all. He is the most likely Rosario replacement. The timing of his appearance at the ML level will be a product of his development as well as Rosario's performance.

He was sensational the 1st half of 2018 and horrible the 2nd half. 1st half vs 2nd half stats are as follows. OPS 930 / 642 wRC+ 149 / 70 Ave 315 / 254 Swinging outside the zone 39/47.5 War 3.3 / .1 I would guess that he will be here in 2021 if he performs similarly to 2019 in 2020. I would think one of the prospects will push him to a bench role during 2021 or to be traded if he does not improve upon 2019 in 2020. Obviously, if he makes it on to the 2021 team there is always the possibility the super Eddie we saw in the first half of 2018 could reappear. I don't see them getting rid of him until one of the prospects forces the issue.

There has been quite a bit of player movement the last few years by several teams focused on payroll management. Take a look at ther link below. Colorado had never had $100M payroll until 2017 when it was $106. In 2018 it climber to $136M and they have a record payroll of $147M this year. If you think the Twins are cheap ... Colorado has more revenue thanks to great attendance and they had never broken $100M in payroll until 2017. 2018 was their best season in a decade and then they crashed to 71 wins last season. I suspect revenue will be down unless they are smokin hot the first couple of months. It would appear they are looking for payroll relief and probably also fear Arenado opts out and they get nothing. Their SPs are very low cost. From a business perspective it makes more sense to hope for a big rebound. I would think they will get at least as good of a return if they wait for the deadline, wouldn't you? Freeland is very interesting. That could be a great acquisition but Colorado would be very foolish to trade him now. They have 4 years of control remaining. I love the idea if he could be acquired at a depressed price right now. High risk but also high ceiling.