Major League Ready

I am starting wish they had taken Gore.

We did not have a 1B or 2B and we needed more SP so we went and got them elsewhere. Odorizzi / Pineda / Cron / Schoop. Is that not what we all want the front office to do. The replacement for Schoop is here and we added a great utility player in Astudillo. It's true we have not added much pitching from within but to complain at this point is pretty silly. Was the expectation that Falvey and Levine would wave a magic wand and undo the poor drafting for pitching that was done before they got here?

Has Poppen added a pitch or gained velocity? In other words, is there something that has changed that would suggest this high level of performance is sustainable or makes him a better MLB prospect?

Mejia was the #15 prospect but he only has a 50FV. Maybe his FV has dropped since the trade. It does not make sense the #15 prospect would have had a 50FV. Regardless, Kirilloff is a 60FV and the Indians were getting an extra year vs the Twins renting him. Plus, The Indians did not add any other prospects unless the report I read was wrong and the Indians got another RP in the trade. I don't think any rental RPs are bringing a FV60 prospect + others.

But does he (Duffey) look significantly better to you in recent appearances? It looks to me like they tweaked something because his FB has a little more velocity / movement and he has had better command. This could be a relatively big deal. To find another quality reliever and literally no cost would be the best case scenario. Trade for one more and this team looks good now and going forward.

What about Duffey? Am I being too Optimistic when I say he looks quite different to me of late. Better command and more life on his FB? I still agree completely we need add another reliable late inning guy regardless of Duffey's improvement but could he be part of the answer?

Yes, there is no validity to that statement. I was listening to the front office on XM radio and Jim Bowden and Jim Duquette (former GMs). A caller called in with the same why doesn't team X just sign player so and so. They both piled on pretty heavily that players know where they want to go and the process facilitates them getting the money they want on the team they want to go to. They were quite clear and insistent that fans are not realistic in their expectations. It's without question a reality we must face and to characterize this situation is an excuse is a fanatical response IMO.

True. It's also true that historically SPs receiving those contracts have performed much better the 1st 3 years than the last three years. The Verlanders of the world are in the minority. Sherzer's contract is also heavily back end weighted. There is no way the Twins are taking on this year and two more at an AAV of $42M, especially given he is already 34 y/o.

I am prioritizing a front of the rotation FA starting Pitcher. Very rough estimate … That addition and the increases due current players (contractually & arbitration) will be around $40M. Therefore, the retention of / Odorizzi / Schoop and a fifth starter will have to come from an increase in payroll. (rough estimate $35M). We can’t have it all so what is the best allocation of resources. I think the addition of a Bumgardner or Cole makes for a much better playoff team. The difference of Schoop vs Arraez or Gordon is probably 12M and the difference. That money is better spent in a another starter or retaining both Gibson and Odorizzi as opposed to keeping just one, IMO. The same could be said for the difference between one of our prospects vs a free agent firth starter.

Reed 8.5 / Hughes 5,950 / Morrison 1M / Santana 1M so 16,450,000 from players they have cut. Catro 8.0M / Pineda 8.0M and Pineda 7.5M = 39.95M

Cron is not a free agent until 2021 so Schoop is the only position player in question. They will shed $40M between Schoop / Reed / Castro / Hughes Santana and Morrison. That allows for them to easily retain Odorizzi and/or Gibson. Best case scenario, retain one of Odorizzi / Gibson and sign a front of the rotation FA. We are waaaaay more attractive to a FA pitcher now. They also have Mejia and a few prospects (Stewart / Gonsalves / Smeltzer) that can fill Pineda’s departure. Of course, we have quite a few guys that will get bumps next year but revenue should also be up given the improved product and excitement around this team.

How about 30 HRs the rest of the way?

They can only keep him on a rehab assignment for 20 days total.

I have always interpreted the issues with Sano's to be things that would derail his own development. I never thought he had a negative impact on anyone but himself. Personally, I pray he comes back and delivers on that enormous potential. This line-up would be ridiculous if he can deliver on that enormous potential.

I don't see them rushing to make changes. Cleveland's loss of Kluber and their lack of depth offensively positions the Twins to take a little time to determine exactly what they need to enhance the team's ability to win playoff series. That's most likely a late inning reliever and the supply will grow as the deadline nears. It also makes sense to look at assess Perez over another 8-10 starts. Has he really become a dominant starting SP or does he have weaknesses the rest of the league will exploit. Has Gibson become or is he becoming the guy you want on the mound in the playoff's. The required additions to aid a playoff run will be more evident in 10 weeks regardless of the answer to these questions. There will also be greater supply of available talent in 8-10 weeks. Therefore, they are not going to make decisions now unless they somehow find a great value. For example, a deal with Kimbrel they like would/could trigger a move now..

So is Guerrero Jr. and the expectation for him is instant success. Of course, he is just getting started but his wRC+ so far is 22.

Orioles are in first position for waiver claims, right?

I did not mean to dismiss the differences. My point was that employees don't get paid more in any other industry based on revenue growth which some contend they are entitled. Let's not forget the players portion is guaranteed and the premise of splitting proceeds is always done before covering operating cost. How does that make sense. If we look at Forbes and Statistica for 2017 (2018 N/A yet) the Twins had 261M in revenue, 108M in player payroll, and $23M in profit. Therefore, operating costs were roughly $130M which means the players portion of revenue after cost 82.4% and ownership's retained 17.6% of the available funds. That seems like a pretty good portion going to players does it not? I would add that the current generation of players did not create this massive opportunity. To say they are responsible for this revenue and therefore deserve this massive payday fails to recognize the are the recipients of very good fortune of which they did not create.

Name another industry where the employees demand guaranteed contracts and an equal cut of the revenue. Of course the equal cut premise makes no sense because the players are not paying the operating costs. If the owners and players split net operating income equally the players would be in for a huge compensation cut. Let's keep this in perspective. Teams are still willing to pay very high AAVs and they are willing to pay that for as long as the player remains productive. The players are stomping their feet because because they want extremely high AAVs regardless of if they perform and they want contracts that give them a couiple of years of additional compensation when they almost certainly will not earn it. Again, a ludicrous concept in any other form of business. I find it difficult to support the premise hundreds of millions is not enough and top players should get an extra $40, 50, etc million after they no longer perform at a high level. In all likelihood the money will be spent, it will just be redistributed to players who's production warrants the compensation.

Some fans obviously think that baseball as an industry should not be subject to free market principals. Of course, had that been the case, nobody would have funded this league and we would not have baseball as we know it today. Player compensation was adequate to attract all of the top talent and the public certainly did not think they were underpaid. Had player compensation remained commensurate with 1969 levels, players would earn roughly $161,000 on average. Of course, they make 25 times that amount. I would say the industry has been incredibly kind to MLB players. Too bad minor league players have not gotten a small piece of the pie. To be fair, the Nippon league pays about $600K/year on average so $161,000 would not be adequate to retain players. However, if they player compensation was one-quarter of today’s rate, I doubt the supply would be impacted. What if at the end of this CBA the owners said we believe all of the teams that got stadium money should repay it. So, the league is going to take 10% of the revenue from each team and distribute it the states that funded stadiums. That would equate to about 1.3M per player on average. In other words, player compensation would have to drop to an average about $3M/player. Now that would be fair. The players would scream bloody murder but the public paying for stadiums so that players can be paid hundreds of millions is ludicrous. Now what if the owners said we think MLB should help the homeless, veterans, battered women, etc and we are going to distribute another $750M or roughly $1M per player to help these people in needs. Now the average salary is $2M. Do we lose any players because they are unwilling to work for an average of $2M/annually?

You apparently did not understand the point. Microsoft and several other companies grew as much or more than MLB. Compensation to their employees did not grow at 7X the adjusted rate of inflation. Businesses don't pay more or less because of changes in revenue. They pay an amount sufficient to attract and retain employees. Would MLB players go do something else if the average comp was 2.2 instead of 4.4M annually?

Does your employer increase wages in parallel to growth in profit? Employers pay an amount that is sufficient to attract people over other options and retain them. The next best option to MLB is the Nippon league at about 1/10 of MLB. You are expecting MLB to operate differently than every other business. Employees are not entitled to a share of the profits in any other industry.

You really think the teams, the league and leadership / promotion of the game had nothing to do with the success of this industry? You live in a very one-sided world.

I can appreciate shortening the years of control would be good for the players but I am quite concerned it would be bad for the game and really bad for small markets. The big markets have easily double the spending capacity for players as compared to small markets. What's the effect on mid and small markets when they lose key players a year earlier? I would start with a raise to MiLB players. Talk about not getting a piece of the pie ... MLB player salaries have grown at roughly 7 times the adjusted rate of inflation. They have done extremely well and MiLB players work for peanuts. Next raise MLB minimums to something like 750K / 1M in the first two years and start arbitration a year earlier.

Front loading the contract basically negates the benefit of the two option years.