Mike Sixel

Have a roku? do you watch any of the channels other than HBO, Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube? If so, why? I tried one of the meditation channels, not so good. When I remember, I sometimes watch Austin City Limits on PBS.

So the Twins fail next year if they get to 81 wins, add three great starters, and set themselves up for 2018? They should be solely focused on winning it all next year, future be damned? If not, then, well, it isn't true that the goal is always win now.... As for Cubs, of course they shouldn't "settle"....but that doesn't make this year a failure, imo. It also doesn't mean that accepting it as a good year is dooming them to mediocrity. These are, of course, not facts, just opinions.

Here is my actual proposal (obviously details can be changed): round 1: The worst 10 teams get $10MM to sign any 1-3 players they want to sign. They have 7 days to come to an agreement. No player can get more than 10MM, and that player cannot get more money from any MLB team until he or she has been in the major leagues at least three years. This last part is to prevent illicit bonuses. That way, there is no incentive to lose the most games.....A player can decide to take $2MM, or risk going to the next round....some players will choose that $2MM, and some won't. But, they will get to negotiate where they go. Also, the 9th worst team still has a shot at the best player. round 2: The worst 20 teams over the last three years (meaning total wins for the last three years) get $5MM to sign any 1-2 players they want to sign. They have 7 days to come to an agreement. No player can get more than 5MM, and that player cannot get more money from any MLB team until he or she has been in the major leagues at least three years. This last part is to prevent illicit bonuses. Why the last three years? Well, we are trying to help the worst teams get better faster, by giving them more resources. round 3: The best 20 teams in this year get $2MM to sign any 1-3 players they want to sign. They have 7 days to come to an agreement. No player can get more than 2MM, and that player cannot get more money from any MLB team until he or she has been in the major leagues at least three years. This last part is to prevent illicit bonuses. round 4: Everyone can sign anyone for, I don't know, up to 200K. They have 7 days to come to an agreement. No player can get more than 200K, and that player gets the league minimum for two years. Is it perfect? No. Is it, imo, better than a pure draft? Yes. The best players get more money, the players get to negotiate some where they go, the teams get a shot at the best players. edit: the no more money thing depends on the league minimums and what not....they still get their league minimum salary....just no more than that. And, as salaries escalate, we'll adjust the numbers.

Heck, just have commercials running on the left or bottom all the time.....

Just curious, where did I say totally free market? I said pools, I said hard caps, I said no such thing as "totally free market".

good counter example! Also really good pancakes.

I didn't say it was only luck....but the Cubs are clearly the best team in the majors this year. They are actually historically one of the best teams ever. But, if they don't win, the entire season was a failure?

Wow. That must make being a sports even harder for you than others. I mean, I get the general sentiment, but "you had no success if you don't luck into the WS title" is a pretty high bar, imo.

I love BBC.... I have also determined that cupcakes, doughnuts, and cakes in general are not my thing.....give me pie or mousse or other things.

Is this an actual argument against giving players more freedom? I can't tell if serious.

What does this have to do with the proposal to change from a draft to a pool of money system?

BTW, I'm talking about EVERY player being in the pool, not just international players.....And, yes, a hard cap.

Uh, the lack of the Twins being able to sign every player or not is no different than any other company having budgets..... Why would it be less balanced, if you give more money to the worst teams? I'd argue it would be faster for the Twins to rebuild, if they could convince three elite players to come here, than to get 1, and a 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder.....but, the teams would be incented to have good minor league systems, to show players they move players quickly and train and develop them well, etc......

He still didn't get to choose, and that's 1 player. What about the other 1000 players? I don't like the draft for players. It is very much not even close to a free market.

I guess my equivocating on NFLX turned out to be a bad idea! I have really been indecisive lately.

Was it in Pollan's first book, where he interviewed that farmer that uses chickens to eat cow dung, and moves his animals around, and whatnot, where he basically said a big problem in rural areas is that the smartest children move on, and that parents want that? I mean, that's got to create some serious issues.....if true.

"the youth today, they just aren't....." says every generation, in some kind of need to feel superior, ever.....

In fairness, I am not sure that most suburban republicans are any better....nor am I sure that rural people have any idea what inner cities are actually like, and are snobby about the lazy, poor, that are taking all their tax money and buying drugs. People have a need, for some reason, to feel better than other people. I do agree, there is a lot of snobbiness in the world

No, not even a little....because they get to pick players. There is no freedom at all. Did you really read that, because having a pool to spend on draft picks is not even close to having a pool to spend on free agents. Sigh.

Nice. the stock I own the most of is up massively today......nice that I get to buy it cheaper than market also....

Well, I was responding to this, hence I was responding to the point I thought he was making that Granite shouldn't be up because he'd sit on the bench most of the time, which, assuming Rosario, Buxton, and Kepler are good, is true in 2 years or 3 years also....I don't know how to make that more clear, frankly. "letting Granite sit on the bench most days as a role player? .... and guys like Granite can play every day at AAA to at least start the year?" No place was I actually arguing he was ready.....I was arguing that it was not sufficient to say he shouldn't come up because he'd sit.

KLAW said yesterday that any talk of Gordon moving off SS was ridiculous. Like his opinion or not, he's seen him play, and he's scouted thousands of players.

Given we all knew this was coming....I also wonder why a player or two in AAA didn't get a look. The good news, whether that past was a mistake or not.....this all makes sense to me.

I hate the draft in sports, from a player's perspective it is bad, bad, bad. I love the draft in sports, as it protects low revenue teams and probably helps bad teams. I would like a hybrid, where bad teams get more money to sign potential players than good teams, and everyone can negotiate and do what they want. Say, the worst 5 teams get a pool of $15MM, the next 5 get $10MM, and the next 20 get $7MM. You get to choose to sign a couple guys for a ton of money, or sign a whole lot of good guys. The players get to choose where they live and work. (those numbers are made up, it would require thought). As for the current international system, it is rife with issues, and is so bad that even KLAW, who hates drafts more than I, thinks this might be a good thing.

Insider summary on Gonsalves from KLAW: "I think the light fastball is going to present problems for him as the competition improves."