DocBauer

So the Twins are caring, forward thinking and classy? And maybe not so cheap after all, eh? I am extremely gratified by this news.

People sometimes worry about what Berrios hasn't done yet they fail to remember what he HAS done. Really, he has been amongst the best SP in ball for about 3/4 of a season before seeming to wear out. I have always attributed that to his famous workout dedication being too strenuous for the season. He and the Twins seem to agree as he did much better at the end of 2019 and there has been additional talk of him adjusting his routine. Oh, and he just turned 26yo I believe Odorizzi needs to prove it again. But late 20's is right about the time a lot of pitchers really hit their peak as talent and experience mesh. Maeda was moved to the pen to close out each of the past few years...from all in have read...because the Dodgers had depth, needed help in the pen, and he was lights out there. The numbers back up his effectiveness. I don't know how good he will be, but his career has been very good so far. Just don't tire him put for the second half, but that's a non issue for 2020. BTW, he's also coming off his best season vs LH batters. We should be excited to watch him.

Way too early to think about mock drafts, especially in baseball, but I find myself really intrigued about this draft considering the whole situation. I try to read and reflect on our FO and try to find some pattern. A couple things I've noticed: 1] Seems to me they look a lot at work ethic and character of a selection. 2] They often seem to look at one special ability of a player and then speculate how much improvement can be developed off of that. Probably even more true of pitchers. Example: He has a tremendous X pitch, now how can we project Y and Z playing off that the next couple of years. Area scouts watch kids across the country from early HS all the way to college. But seems to me, projecting a college age player, even with mixed results and a shortened 2020 spring, would be a lot easier right now than a HS player with a scholarship in hand who barely played ball this year, or not at all. The latest issue of Baseball America basically states this is a prime year for college talent, regardless of current circumstances. While the potential of position players is outstanding, this could be the best draft class of college pitchers in years! They even posted 2019 and 2020 pitching options in a ranking and it was dominated by 2020 arms. It's still all speculation, and I don't think TOP HS players will be ignored, but I'm wondering, with no milb season and maturation factors, if the Twins and most teams don't target primarily/only college players. Despite overall depth in the system, including better pitching talent than we've seen in years, I wonder if the Twins don't go this route. Maybe college pitchers only?

I feel for the milb system and am amongst the VAST MAJORITY of us here who have advocated for change there. And I'm not going to bring up that debate again except to say that I don't think financial "loss" is accurate. Players in MLB today "paid their dues" to arrive at their goal. They received millions to a couple thousand dollars for signing and then a salary to play, unfair though the $ may be. But they never lost $ to play, unless they chose to turn down $ in another career area to peruse their dream. Not picking on your post as you and mostly agree on all things, including this conversation, just trying to be clear headed and accurate while trying to make some additional points and using your quote as a place to start. When something hits a business hard, such as this pandemic, losses are also generally spread out from infrastructure to salary cutbacks. Most people I know, fortunately for them, have remained gainfully employed, though have lost bonuses or various forms of extra pay they may have earned. But they are still employed and still earning $. But it obviously hasn't been the same for a lot of people who are temporarily or permanently let go. Someone mentioned a chef, I believe it was, as an analogy of someone being asked to take a pay cut to work. While that stinks, at least that chef would still be able to work and earn while the business was carry out only, no in house customers, and now maybe partial in house customer occupancy. But that restaurant owner was still paying rent, utilities, taxes, benefits for his employees, and salaries for as many employees as they still could, even if there were cut backs. Taken to a big picture scenario, this is where baseball finds itself right now. When most anyone joins a business or a company, they start at a lower level and work their way up in regard to salary and title. This is generally true from a recent college grad to a fry cook who becomes a restaurant manager. Even if salaries are absurd, ML players have earned their contracts via the structures in place. And I can be appreciative of them and their talent and earnings, While also being a bit jealous, but I don't begrudge them their $. And IMO, they are being asked to make less $, but truly, they are not being asked to "lose" money the way MLB is expected to lose. (Or at best maybe break even). Now, where I think ownership is making a mistake is IF they are still trying to find profit here. It's one thing to mitigate losses or break even, but it's another situation entirely if they're still trying to eek out said profit in their "side investment/hobby" at this juncture. Another area where ownership could be POTENTIALLY making a mistake is the lower percentage of $ paid to the higher market players. If they are going to lose $ as the entity that is MLB, perhaps losing a bit more to adjust higher values to those players could be seen as a good faith offering, especially with the CBA around the corner. Business wise, agreeing to a bigger loss may not make sense, but for better labor peace it could pay eventual dividends. In regard to MLB, and owners, asking for assistance to mitigate losses but unwilling to share in additional revenue, i am utterly perplexed. Before THIS CRAZY SITUATION, the players have enjoyed great financial rewards over the past couple of decades. So they HAVE shared in tne revenue growth of the sport. Further, while final numbers may be fluid, I find it very interesting that tbe owners proposal includes bonuses paid out to the players based on post season and WS revenue. Perhaps I read it wrong, but my impression was that would be league wide. To the players I would simply add, they are smart enough to know this pandemic situation is going to have far reaching affects over the next few years in regard to everything from extensions, arbitration and FA. But for the good of the sport, the union, the players themselves, a little more hurt for 2020 might somewhat somewhat soften the blow over the next few years. But again, I'd offer up to ownership that a little more loss and cooperation with the union now may lead to a better CBA going forward.

Rounded slightly, as a whole, MLB brings in $10B to pay for the sport. (Obviously individual teams $ varies). Only half a season is played, total revenue becomes $5B. Your $20M player's prorated salary is now $10M. Simple, right? Now, half a season without fans, and expected MLB revenue becomes $3B, or so is estimated. That means a half season, fan less, is 1/3 total income. Your $20M salaried player now earns slightly more than $6.5M. In other words, not far off from the $5M proposed in the chart above. Now, there is some debate/confusion as to language in the original agreement between both sides. This could all be media fed hype, but it would sound logical that the reported clauses to re-address the original agreement once more information was gathered ring true. The debate then becomes very different. Lower salary players earn less, but make a higher percent of their 100% target. Are the owners just trying to save more $? Are they trying to be more equitable and fair to lower salary players? Both? You don't have to answer that, I'm just tossing out thoughts. Kind of puts some of the onus on the players to agree amongst themselves. But really, at least as an initial proposal, what ownership has presented doesn't sound all that illogical or impractical to me.

While a half season stinks, it should be enough for the true contenders to sort themselves out. Lesser teams could be hot for stretches, but not sure they could maintain momentum needed to reach the playoffs, much less win it all. However, the 1987 Twins team might disagree with me going from worst to first. I want to agree with Nick on their being a caveat asterisk involved if there is an "epidemic" of players who sit out. But if it turns our to be a small number, then I would call that not historically consequential as every season there are some guys stars or not, that are hurt and miss large chunks or all of a season due to injury. History should look on 2020 the same in this case should it prove to be a small group.

You are 100% correct. Don't know where my head was. Make my vote Sano or Donaldson. Either would have the big power and probably OB to make a difference and let Killer play 1B. Donaldson, with head reattached to body, is probably the correct selection. *I did have a little accident over the weekend that involved my forehead meeting concrete, so I have that as an excuse.

I'm with Ash on this one. 3 shutouts with few hits involved screams the need for a difference maker. Sano could have been that guy.

A bit crazy and frustrating to look back at this season. How many years did the Twins have the offense but no or not enough pitching? And then they had plenty in 2005 but so little offense for various reasons. I lament but never really dwell on letting Ortiz go. Mistakes happen and the Twins have benefited from other team's mistakes. And it happened so long ago that to dwell seems counter productive. But I never understood the issues with Lohse. He did not have a great career, but he had a solid one with a few really nice seasons here and there. Something just never seemed to "fit" between he and the Twins.

2020......so far

The LHP Shuster sounds like the perfect selection if he's still around for our second selection. A little under the radar and projectable.

In regard to the original 10: 1] Garver: HR% numbers could drop league wide depending on the ball. But the HR and launch angle trend in MLB is real. So is Garver's power, approach and swing. Can we even really call last year a true "breakout" season when it was really his first year as the "primary" receiver and only 2nd season overall? I think he's for real. 2] Garver games caught: Ugh, math. Still a good platoon partner. But a short season. 50 games, which is 60%. 3] Sano at 1B: He's going to miss a few balls and botch a few plays. He's played there before but is learning the nuances. He won't be great right away, but he will be solid. He will also use his natural athleticism to make a few plays that will make you say; "Whoa! If he could just do that more consistently...." 4] Arraez: You won't see such a natural hitter slump even if he doesn't hit .330 in his second season. Even a dip to .310-.315 with a .390ish OB is excellent. He'll improve defensively and might even muscle up on the XB production. 5] Polanco: No, probably, because there won't be an All Star game. Not unless they want to have one after the season, similar to the NFL, which I doubt for various reasons. But he could make an All Star 1st-3rd team All Star post season selection team. 6] Rosario: He's been bothered the 2nd half of each of the last 2 seasons with different injuries. Healthy, smart enough talented enough, still young enough, healthy and just a small improvement in approach lifts an already good game to a more consistent level. And he will be back in 2021 Because he's good, still won't be overly expensive, and there are doubts anyone will be ready to replace him considering how weird this whole year is going to be. 7] Buxton: He will be dinged, like most players, and miss a few games. But not only should experience be teaching him how to save his body better, and it's a short season, but law of averages will come in to play here to balance some bad luck. 8] Kepler: Reference the law of averages again while factoring in youth, talent, approach, great swing and adjustments being made. At some point his ridiculous BABIP will adjust, even a little. We still haven't seen the best from Max. 9] Cruz: Father time will beat him. But it won't happen this year. Witness not only 2019 but the ST he was having before thjngs shut down. Now factor in a half season. He might not have another career season, even in an abbreviated one, but he will be fine. I would have said the same thing in regard to a full and complete 2020 season, with the idea Father Time would start to pull ahead in 2021. But in a Twins uniform or not for 2021, I'm thinking a short 2020 may put off the inevitable by another year. 10] Donlaldson: He won't be crushing on Twins pitching, but he has crushed about anyone, anywhere, in his career when healthy. I have no doubts he will continue to do so for the first 2-3yrs of his contract, as long as he remains healthy. Guy is a stud hitter. Like Cruz, the half season may actually work to an advantage. Yep, I'm an optimist, but I think all of this is logical and true.

Guess I'm going to end up echoing allot of things already pondered here. The Twins are absolutely in WIN NOW mode and they have to keep some AAA guys around who can "come up" from the taxi squad to fill in as needed, whether they are in Minnesota or Florida. And somehow,some way, those guys need to PLAY, scrimmages or whatnot. They can't just have bullpens and batting practice and stay sharp. I'm still hoping for some sort of limited or very limited type of milb season/set up where they can play other teams, even if it has a but of a pickup game feel to it. I would need to sit down with pen and paper to make a list as to who I might select for that taxi squad, but I think the original 30 man roster is easy to figure out. I don't think you necessarily need 3 reserve catchers, however, when you will already have 3 on the ML roster. Two probably works fine. But do you include Jeffers in that 2? And to me that begins the biggest issue. Can the Twins, or anyone, really afford to have members of their top 10-ish prospects that are a season or potentially half a season away just sit for a year? If there really and truly is no form of milb season, no MLB version of a "Cape Cod" league or modified EST, etc, then how does that affect 2021 and beyond for all teams when guys lose an entire season? It's debatable how much, if at all, Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, Jeffers, etc, would be needed or able to contribute this year if they are placed on the taxi squad. But if they are, they could still get valuable developmental time. But then again, does that screw up their service time? Not to mention 40 man implications for next offseason. What if you're a team like the Tigers...sorry to pick on your team Gardy...and you realistically have nothing to play for in 2020? You might as well load up your 50 man total roster with all the young talent you can to get them as much development and experience as you can to jump start 2021. Kind of an unfair advantage toward building your roster going forward. 40 man restrictions need to be thrown out the window with some sort of negated or prorated service time. Taxi squads need to play in some format. And the entire milb system needs to be addressed to SOME degree. Players need SOME sort of pay, losses be damned as they are part of each organization, and SOME sort of short season needs to be implemented later this summer or fall for ALL of milb just for development. Make some sort of Cactus/Grapefruit league work for a couple months at facilities even for a couple months. Considering the locations involved, you could even do so after the ML season. Call it an Americanized version of the winter leagues.

I like the principal here, especially early on, when an abbreviated ST part 2 May not have everyone fully ramped up anyway. And if the roster really is sitting at around 30 players, then this makes it a very practical idea, especially considering the depth the Twins have. The obvious caveat, of course being fewer days off of a series of double headers, could change plans for "secondary" starters to be made available to do just that, start games. Still a bit perplexed by the 80 games when a slightly extended season and some double headers could provide something closer to 90-92 games, but whatever. Just a personal comment, the 3rd one through a lineup situation can be made clear through numbers, like those posted here. But in a normal season, like 2019, those numbers presumably existed. And yet, pitchers like Odorizzi and Pineda ultimately prevailed with quality years and quality seasons. So it's not like we are talking about bailing out bums in the rotation.

NOT picking on sandbun, his post or feelings, in any way shape of form. But I find his comments/feelings about the Pohlad's to be interesting because there is such a far ranging opinion about Twins ownership. (I'm sure that's true of the majority of professional sports teams, to be honest). As fans, in general we get very upset at the players on our teams when they hold out, or make contract demands that could affect our favorite team. I don't think it's every personal, we just want our players to play and be part of the team. When financial situations disrupt that team, or lead to a loss of a favorite player, we lament the situation and sometimes forget it is still a business. When we feel ownership doesn't spend enough, or becomes "cheap" in any way, we become equally divisive about them. Again, forgetting sometimes it is still a business. On the one hand...and I'm NOT starting an old debate here, PLEASE...ownership has a reputation financially, right or wrong. And the entire potential contraction scenario brought about much fear angst and vitriol. Was possible contraction only a power play? Was it real? We may never truly have an answer, at least not one that everyone agrees to. If a power play, they certainly wouldn't be the first owners of ANY business to do so. But then again, not only was the Metrodome dieing a quick death, but we have seen the financial landscape change in all sports, not just baseball, over the last decade plus where you have to wonder where the Twins would even be today without Target Field. But on the other hand, current ownership basically saved Minnesota baseball when they bought the franchise. That should never be forgotten. They brought 2 WS titles and several winning seasons of quality baseball since said contraction speculation. No sides here, just...interesting how you want to look at things. 2000 and 2001 offered hope and promise again that 2002 began to fulfill. It's been a long while since the Twins have been to the WS, that much is true. But this was the start of a string of years of competitive ball that were fun and where we had a shot.

What I remember wasn't the final record, but a feeling akin to the early 80's teams when guys were coming up that the team was setting a foundation of hope.

One thing that concerns me here is teams with deeper pockets using the limited draft to their advantage. And I was reminded today listening to Gleeman and the Geek that the changes to the draft will probably extend to 2021 as well. HS players, with little exception, will be forced to go to college now. If you are a TOP HS prospect, you probably still sign even though you only get around $100K or so initially. But you get the rest of your bonus money over the next 2yrs. So you still probably sign. Over slot HS signings just probably don't sign and go to school. College players are just screwed. IF your school will allow you to come back, IF they will honor any scholarship money made available to you...big IF's at this point...you can try to go back for another season and see what happens with ANOTHER potentially limited draft in 2021. OR, you can sign with a ML team for $20K and peruse your dream for the bonus money that would be paid to a 14+ round draft selection and hope for a normal 2021 milb season. If that is your choice, and the Yankees or Dodgers, as an example, come calling, do you look at the Twins, or Royals, or Padres, etc. Some teams could use deep pocket reserves to offer a ton of $20k contracts others couldn't match. OR, would big market teams not interest you if you felt the road to the majors was a tougher road due to prospect depth and future FA acquisitions? OR, is there a loophole in the $20K bonus deep pocket teams see where they could offer incentives to make this an unfair free for all? Amongst the many things that have to be worked out for a ML season, including development of current milb systems and players, ownership needs to find a way to make any draft and potential signings fair and equitable across the board. If they don't, they end up further screwing up an already disjointed situation. And if they aren't smart about this, college pkayers will end up in the independent leagues for 2021 and a potentially unfair bidding war will take place then. It's not hard to imagine a collection of college players in independent leagues next season, 2021, developing/dominating/, and being offered contracts by big market teams who have greater financial flexibility coming off whatever 2020 ends up offering. There are ramifications that have to be considered beyond just "saving money" in regard to the 2020 and 2021 draft.

Logic would dictate little action in a short season, especially since trading teams would be uncertain what they are getting back in terms of prospects with no milb season, as been projected. With expanded rosters...some sort of 40+ total roster for reserves, call ups, etc, working out and possibly scrimmaging, teams just won't know exactly what they are trading for. Agreed you need about 2/3 of the season to be played before you hit a deadline. Everyone needs to see what they have and where they are trending. September 1st could be a target date. Could a contending team, especially a team with deep pockets who figure they could over-sign next year, over pay to make a move to push them over the top? Would a team with injuries or covid cases also potentially over pay? Or would they fold up tents? Just so much we can only speculate at this point.

If Marwin has a good 2020, not so sure he doesn't re-sign with the Twins for another season or two but at less than he is currently earning due to age and the fact that I think FA is going to adjust downward for a number of players due to losses incurred in 2020. What Marwin has is a better bat than Hernandez. If Adrianza is brought back, you already have a Hernandez type on your roster who may be a better hitter. Not saying he would be a bad signing just the opposite, but he could be redundant with the guys already on the roster. Quintana would be very interesting. Honestly, I think I'd rather have Odorizzi back. And I'm expecting 3yrs in the $15-16M range, less than what he would have gotten had 2020 been a normal full year with no pandemic. But I think that's going to be true for a lot of guys. I'd almost wonder, with top prospects being delayed due to a missed season, FA $ dropping, Hill and a couple other guys potentially coming off the books, could the Twins afford to keep Odorizzi AND sign Quintana? Hill is going to be prorated like everyone, but he had the potential to earn up to $14M IIRC. could he essentially replace Hill??? I'd rather keep May over Herrera. Period. With a little luck, wisdom and maturity, the one good thing that will come out of this pandemic and mixed up short season is the owners and players association realizing how important coming to some sort of mutually beneficial labor resolution really is for all involved. Both sides have power. Both sides need and want baseball for income. Period. The public also wants and needs baseball. With fear, change of lifestyle, loss of jobs and income, missing sports in general, can baseball suffer another work stoppage at this point? The ramifications could be heavy for both sides I regard to finances and public opinion, which will in return further affect income and profitability. FA and even trades, as well as options and the such, could and will be affected next off-season. How much will each side be willing to lose even more? Let's hope cooler and smarter heads will prevail?

Equal or over on everyone except Arraez. Bad luck runs out eventually. While he might miss a few games, Buck will flash! Cruz is Steve Austin...the bionic man...and will mash as long as his wrist holds out. Might be a sort of farewell tour, but he will be ready. Maeda is damn good. He's changed his approach somewhat, and is coming off his best season against LH hitters. Also, new league that doesn't know him as well. Garver's bat is for real. And while he won't have to play daily, he also doesn't have to worry about being worn down. I expect some regression, but he will be above the .888 mark. Hunch on Arraez says he will be just fine but sophomore "slump" will factor in and he won't hit .320. Might hit .319, but I think he returns to mere mortal status for a season.

Still betting the suspension of Pineda will be reduced. How could it not be considering the fluidity of, well, EVERYTHING. Hill bas always been a hopeful question mark. Does anybody have any idea how the surgery turned out? How is he feeling? Even without direct contact with Twins trainers and support staff, surely he's finding some way to rehab and on a throwing program. Berrios, Odorizzi, Hill, Maeda, Pineda, Bailey, Dobnak, Smeltzer, Thorpe and a strong pen. Liked the staff without Hill. Loved the staff if we could get a half season of Hill. Is it possible a half season of ball could actually work in our favor?

Sorry, no debate should be necessary, Rosario is #1 for cool factor. Agree 100% Cruz should be in the rankings as well. Marwin should be honorable mention for his beard.

I think it's basically a given that MLB, and the owners, are not making a profit this year. Its about mitigating losses to break even, IMO. IF the owners ARE trying to make a profit for any sort of 2020 season then shame on them and they are being very misguided. As I stated before elsewhere, everyone should be looking for part of something because all of nothing is exactly that, nothing. The people who own ML teams, by themselves or as majority owners with minor partners, I would just about guarantee, don't enjoy profits from baseball to earn any sort of living. The owners, sole/majority/minor, own and run many other businesses and corporations. Sure profits from baseball line their coffers, but it is not some primary income for them. So yes, they can afford to have a zero balance sheet for 2020. Absolutely. But to suggest because they are billionaires they can simply afford to sustain a huge financial hit in 2020 and just "absorb" multi-million dollar losses is misguided. It assumes two things: 1] Because of their net worth they have vaults sitting flush with liquid cash they can and are willing to pass out and lose for 2020. I'm no financial expert, not even close, but I know that's not how business works. 2] It also assumes absorbing huge losses for their ML franchises is OK for 2020 because all of their other businesses/corporations/investments are still sound and doing well. In what possible scenario could that be true? How many people are out of work, laid off, taking pay cuts, etc, right now due to this world wide pandemic? I dare say it's possible some readers/contributors here at TD could be facing a crisis or loss of income from a company they work for that is owned by someone who owns a MLB franchise. Let's assume for a moment that ML owners were actually willing to go beyond breaking even for this season and actually accept huge multi million dollar losses to have a season and pay the players as much as they possibly could. What does that do to the stability of the franchise? Who starts losing jobs? Taking it further, how many additional cutbacks and job losses are there in the other businesses owned and run by these owners to make up for said losses? Companies and businesses that are unrelated to baseball and already facing crunches and losses on their own? The mitigating factors here are far more reaching than just just the health of each franchise for 2020. I have always had a problem with professional athletes...not all of them assuredly...making absurd comments like: "I have to make as much as I can in my career while I can because my career window is so short", as if they can't invest or do anything else for the rest of their lives. It would take me 10 years to make what a MLB rookie makes in just a single full season, not even considering additional perks and the such. HOWEVER, I have seldom ever begrudged a professional athlete from making as much money as they can in their career. (There are situations where someone is greedy and nuts and we all know this, lol). Additionally, I've never begrudged an owner of a business, or sports franchise, to also earn a profit from their investment. (Now, it's different if they are just greedy, nasty, and looking to gouge people. I think that's fair). The players do make the game, not the owners. No players...no game...no entertainment...no league. And the players, not to mention managers, coaches, trainers, staff, etc, incure a risk by playing. That shouldn't be forgotten. And they deserve to be paid. But at some point, reality has to set in for both parties. Break even, make some money, get on with tomorrow and your career if feasible. Keep baseball mkving forward for yourselves, the sport, and for the public, your fans and supporters. HOPEFULLY, maybe even learn something from all of this in a collaborative effort for the future. Part of something is better than all of nothing.

Despite being a life long Twins fan, my viewing of baseball on TV was regulated mostly to Cubs, Braves and Mets games in my youth as my cable provider carried stations with these teams. I always found it frustrating and disappointing to watch pitchers flail at the plate. And I always have laughed at the "strategy" of inserting a PH in the 6th or 7th inning with a possible rally. That's not intelligent strategy, it's putting in a better hitter. Even in the AL that is done. I read an article, many, many years ago that discussed the differences in the AL vs NL game. The NL had the reputation as being a more defense minded league who played more to speed and situational hitting. (Things I enjoyed and still do). The jist of the article is the NL teams largely played in larger parks than their AL counterparts, and also had more turf fields vs grass. Thus they adapted their game as such. Everything from ballparks to hitting approaches have changed over the years. The entire bunting, SB and situational hitting format of years past has changed. Its time for a universal DH. Let pitchers pitch. Players aren't expected to pitch, so why must pitchers be mandated to hit? I've always felt AL teams in NL parks were at a disadvantage. While the arguement can easily be made that NL teams, at this time, are not necessarily equipped with a quality DH option, they are still replacing a generally poor hitter with a better one. Further, they may have a poor defender playing a position for his bat, but can let him DH in favor of a better fielder taking his spot against an AL opponent. It's time to make this a universal change.

IMO, HS players will only be included in the first 2-3 rounds. The money just won't be there to play with for overslot signings unless a team can pull of a magic trick of financial logistics somewhere. So the problem you have are a plethora of college players who may or may not be welcomed back to their schools for another season. There is the real possibility the sport could be dropped at some schools, or put on hiatus for a season for the school to rebound financially. I can't speak for other schools, but Wisconsin has already stated they will not allow an extra year for spring athletes. I fully appreciate financial concerns and questions about a milb season and how it will be played, if at all. (Though I've also stated I think a form of Cactus and Grapefruit league games could provide a limited season solution). While projectjng players at this point would be difficult as guys rise and fall with another season under their belt, scouting of these players has already been ongoing. You can't cut off your nose to spite your face. With all the uncertainty involved, I'd really like to see 10 rounds and maybe bump the signing bonus closer to $40-50K, maybe with an adjusted total cap so more affluent teams couldn't just take advantage of the situation. I'm afraid there could be a number of college players, for various reasons, who either hang it up, or try their luck at an independent league, and then suddenly there is an unfair and uncontrolled free-for-all in 2021 for their signature.