DocBauer

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.

Really like this post. Not 100% about a few owners holding the rest of the league hostage, but I could be convinced. The problems with baseball are two fold: 1] Marketing. Don't talk to me about pace of play and time frame until you first address marketing. The average baseball game is roughly 3hrs. So is the average NFL game. The NBA, with an 80+ game season has games that are around 2+ hours. The NFL is an EVENT because games are weekly vs daily. The NBA is almost exactly half a MLB season, not including long playoffs. Marketing for MLB will never be the same for baseball as these other two sports due to its length of season. But the culmative of games watched and attendance doesn't show an overall loss from numbers I have read before. Its just more spread out. But where are jersey sales, shoe contracts, etc, when it comes to MLB? But where is there any hype, any interest in something BIG? Yes, the occasional big market team facing another big market team, or cross city matchup. And with a marathon season, hype is hard to build up. I get it. But the NFL and NBA both hype up contests that MLB doesn't in regard to star players and matchups, which leads to my next point. 2] Competitive balance. If MLB owners are completely blind, then we are all cursed as baseball lovers. Think about KC for a moment. They stunk for years and then put together a really good team for 2yrs who managed to make the WS twice. And then they fell apart. They had to due to financial restraints. The Chiefs won the Super Bowl and have one of the most electric stars in all of the NFL. If their staff is smart, they can ride a tide of a talented roster and all pro QB for the next few years. The Royals are just hoping to rebuild on what they have over the next few years to compete again. The NFL has shown, repeatedly, that a smart FO can assemble a team to compete every few years. Or, in some cases, compete consistently for several years if you have a few key players in place. But MLB has consistently shown that the "have's" will be able to weather a poor season or two before rising again with greater finances. The MLB players union has fought any kind of cap for decades now. And it makes financial sence for them to some degree. But to some degree, the owners have to find a medium of total revenue sharing, even without a true cap, so that there is a more level playing field for the entire ML system. For the good of the entire league and it's future health. Today and tomorrow.

I would also doubt many players opt out after missing out so much time and money this year, especially with the possibility of a work stoppage when the next collective bargaining session begins. After the 2021 season if memory serves. And with that potential dark cloud hanging over things, and with all the lost revenue from this year, I'm also thinking FA will be looked at very differently next year in regard to years and dollars. Let's use Odorizzi as an example. He's about $18M this season with the QO, but prorated now to whatever degree ends up happening. He was never going to get $25M if he goes the FA route next year. But he might have received $18-20M per, or just slightly north. But now? Considering he likes being a Twin and has been open to an extension, he might be much more inclined to stay "home" with the Twins for 3yrs and around $15-16M per. There is no way this doesn't end up affecting the market next offseason.

I will re-iterate something I've posted in other threads. If the MLB plan to play in AZ and/or FL is scrapped, why can't they have a shortened Cactus and Grapefruit season for milb? That's how ST is run, with enough space and fields for everyone to work out and play games. IF a ML team needs to play in their ST facility, at least to begin the season, there should still be room on the additional fields for the milb games. If safety issues lessen then the various teams can move to their normal stadiums to continue the season, shortened though it may be. Those cities would then be able to enjoy at least some of the game and limited incomes they would produce. Really, the only difficult part would be adjusting the remaining schedule for those teams. But you're telling me they couldn't find someone smart enough to set up 2 schedules? One for AZ/FL affiliates and then say a week break, and plan the last month plus of the season when/if the teams return to their host cities. Players play and develop. They are available for promotion. With luck, host city affiliates get to bring in at least a little $ and the fans have something to enjoy.

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.

I'm having a hard time "clicking" my vote. What's really disappointing in this scenario is the proposed lift from Hill that hasn't happened. I am stubborn, combining real life and electronic life, that the pen should be OK. I'm voting for another SP arm, though I think Pineda is going to continue to help. But if there is a Dyson/Romero move out there, then I say to do both.

And if this is true...not saying it's not...then the owners are being very, very short sighted.

I probably should have clarified my comments in regard to some pushback by agents like Boras and other rumors that have been put it there. In truth, we don't have all the financial details. The owners won't open their books and I don't know if they should or shouldn't. I guess my point is an agreement was reached based on information/speculation as it was known at the time. I am not against the players and a flat proration of salaries at all. But if new information shows a very different prospectus for income/lost income, then I can see the point of owners wanting to open up conversation again and basically say; "look guys, when we talked about this a couple months ago projections were X. We now see an entirely different set of numbers we didn't anticipate at the time that shows Y." Every business has bottom lines they have to look at for the profitability and health of their business. My own company is privately owned and doing a great job for all their employees. But they are also capping salaries, bonuses incentives and the such to make sure everyone is taken care of and the company stays healthy. I don't know if the owners of my company are billionaires or multi millionaires, but they are very wealthy. But my company is only a single entity under their corporate umbrella. That means overhead and thousands of additional employees they are responsible for. The billionaire owners of MLB franchises are in a similar situation. Do the owners have some sort of catastrophic insurance to offset losses from the pandemic? I don't know. Maybe they do. I find myself somewhat dubious that even if they do, it fully offsets projected losses. And if they are playing games with the players to squeeze out a little more, then shame on them. (Especially with a new labor agreement due in the near future). But if there are honest new numbers that have come to light, then I understand them going to the union and stating as such and hammering out a different arrangement for everyone's sake. I hate to say this as I want everyone to play nice always, for the good of the sport we all love, but I hope the owners are being honest and the players will be open minded.

FINANCIALLY: I take no sides. Just using basic logic, as I stated in a sister thread, a percentage of something is better than all of nothing. I side with baseball and it's health and future, and don't choose to pick a side. But to just say billionaire owners will be fine with losses is a poor and destructive arguement. Do these billionaire owners have no other businesses,and employees who are not affected by covid? Do these billionaire owners just have stacks of liquid cash to just dispense as they will? The answer is no. MLB is a business, an elite business and franchise to be sure, but still a business. And like any business, big or small, it is being impacted by the pandemic. The players deserve to be paid. As do the coaches, clubhouse attendants and everyone else involved. And if you own a franchise, there is absolutely an obligation to your product and your employees. But just dishing out millions of $ to ballplayers for a partial season at full season rate is also not logical or responsible for the sake of the franchise, it's stability or the stability of MLB as a whole. There needs to be a compromise that makes sense for both sides. Someone brought up a year in which ALL teams do a universal profit sharing system to make this work. Agreed 100%. For the good of the game it makes sense and SHOULD to everyone involved. ON THE FIELD: I've heard 100G season and 80G season. I've also seen ridiculous re-alignment options to save money. The various divisions/conferences are already perfectly set, with the EXCEPTION some teams may simply not be allowed to play at home. That is the LEAST of the logistical or financial issues involved. Each team plays their own division opponents in 6 3 game series home and away. That's 72 games. You then play your cross league region for a pair of 3 game home and away series for a total of 24 games. Add it up and you have a 96 game season. PLAYOFFS: For 2020, if not beyond, you have 6 playoff teams in each league. The top division winners by record get a bye. The other 4 teams play a 3 game series to move on to the next 5 game round before a traditional 7 game WS. MILB: While some ML teams may be forced to play elsewhere other than home parks, including their ST facilities, at least initially, there is no reason milb can't have their own 60-80 game season playing a variation of the Cactus and Grapefruit league for further savings. The MLB and milb season both commence. The devil is in the details when it comes to the safety logistics to make all of this work. But assuming for a moment this is worked out, the singular important piece is the financial/sharing/pro-rated $ aspect of a ML season. After that, this just really isn't that hard. Not sure i want the job, but when do I get to step in to Manfred's job, or at least become his chief advisor, lol?

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that. I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge. I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement. Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.

I'm not sure what guarantees for revenue exist in MLB. I mean, in the NFL, for example, they negotiate a perecteage of total revenue to be paid to players. I'm not sure that exists in MLB. I want to say, in this circumstance, players are always pro-rated by games played. But is that flat based on TV/radio revenue or is there some clause that equates to total revenue based on gates and parking and food and drink, etc? Don't have a clue. Glad I'm not in charge. At the end of the day, we're still talking about a business. And all business is affected at this point. There is going to be a big loss in revenue and salaries. They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Even in a multi-billion revenue sport, there is going to have to be an acceptable loss in both sides. Sounds simplistic, but part of something is better than all of nothing.

The NCAA is allowing all spring sport athletes to return for another year of competition/eligibility. This includes baseball amongst other sports such as softball, track and field, tennis, golf, etc, unless I missed any exclusions. Kudos to the NCAA for doing something right for a change. The problem with this, however, is 3 fold: 1] What does the athlete want to do? 2] With point #1, every spring sport I can think of is always a partial scholarship, so the onus is on any athlete to incur further debt for another year, pending various other grants or scholarships. 3] Various universities may simply not have funds available to "float" even partial scholarships for another year. Without a full 2020 schedule of school and athletics, some schools may have to shut their doors for a year, if not longer, or make serious changes/cutbacks. Wisconsin, for example, has already stated they will not allow for an extra year as it would not be fair to athletes who had season's cut short, nor for non athlete attendees on various scholarships. The 5 round draft hurts everyone involved. MLB should expand to at least 10 rounds, IMO, if not 15-20, to allow for these circumstances. MLB is still a business, and one that has ZERO cash flow at the moment and has no idea what is going to transpire for 2020. But MLB also has to build for their own future, without opening up some crazy floodgate for upper echelon teams with greater financial reserves. The EASY solution, IMO, to allow for what is happening in the world at this moment, and to be fair for all involved, is to adopt old school draft rules for a year. I don't recall all the parameters as not only have signing numbers and dates for offers changed, but IIRC correctly, there used to be two different phases of the draft. Regardless, there used to be a "draft and follow" portion of the selection process. Certain levels of players could be drafted and allowed to play the following year and then signed by the drafting team up until a couple weeks before the next draft. They could sign or re-enter the draft at that point. The signage pool is what it is and has become. And teams can play with their pool to over sign or under sign various players. And after the first few rounds of the draft, we have all seen wild swings from $10k to $200+K for college players in particular. And maybe the $20K should be bumped closer to $40-50k. But allow teams to make an additional 5-10-15 selections and let the draftees make the choice. Do they sign now? Or do they wait to sign before the next draft, counting against the team's pool of 2020/2021 adjusted pool? Nobody is on the hook for anything except a wait and see scenario. To player and team, this seems the only fair way to me.

Couple things about Garver: 1] While 2019 may have surprised to some degree, and it may or may not be his career season, and the ball may have influenced his season and seasons to come, I've always believed in his offensive ability. Even with various factors leading to some regression, he's still a fine hitter, with discipline and with power. He's a quality offensive player and not "just" for a catcher. 2] While a bit of a late bloomer, being a college player and catcher, he is in his prime years at this moment and SHOULD be in line for another 3-4yrs of prime production age wise barring injury concerns. 3] Unless I have missed something, he has never had anything, injury wise, of any concern thus far in his career that wasn't "normal" such as a sprained ankle and the such. The exception being a couple concussions, though I am unsure to the degree of either of them. He seems to be built sturdily, seems to be in fine shape, and has recovered from various nicks and the such quickly. If concussions don't return as a bugaboo, again, he should have another 3-4 prime years available behind the plate. 4] While coming up through the minors, he shared a lot of time behind the plate. This was due to him still developing defensively as well as sharing time with guys like fellow draftee Turner. So the actual physical wear and tear mileage behind the plate has been somewhat mitigated before he reached MLB. And even last year, during his breakout, he still shared time with the solid, productive veteran Castro. 5] Rocco, and the FO, recognize the value of quality catching on the club, with a plan not to also not wear out their players. We saw it some at the end of 2018 when Garver was showing improvement but they struck with veteran Wilson a chunk of the time. Yes, this was also defense/experience related. But in a lost season, they also didn't just throw caution to the wind and just say "the he'll with it" and throw Garver out there daily. Avilla was brought in as a perfect 1yr replacement for Castro to continue having a quality mix and match scenario...with Astudillo available...until someone like Jeffers was ready. Now, the whole milb season of play and development is under as big of a cloud as the ML season is, and could require a whole lot of re-thinking and re-examination roster wise for 2021 for all teams at all positions, but the Twins seem to have a good handle on what they want to do behind the plate. And all of this is to say, yet again, Garver is primed to be a top catcher for the next 3-4yrs.

I find the base of the article interesting, but rather frustrating. Unless a SP is more or less a "junk baller", meaning low velocity so he tosses up a series of change ups and breaking balls, wouldn't most all SP be above the 48% threshold? I mean, for the most part, everything still works off the FB and FB location doesn't it?

As I understand it, Duffey moved from a traditional curve to more of a power curve or slurve. Some have called it a slider but my understanding is more of an adaptation of his curveball, which he used to throw 2 variations of. Alcala throws consistently in the mid 90's, right around May's velocity, but cranks it up to the high 90's. Colina, Chalmers and Duran do the same, though the hope at present time all 3 can remain in the rotation, especially Duran who is right there with Balazovic for top rotation arm hopefulls.

I've only had a chance to watch a couple of games but they were fun and very well done. And kudos to the music selection between innings!

Me trying to sound smart about hitting would be about as intelligent as saying I believe I could enjoy a conversation in Portuguese. (I do not speak Portugese). The take that I find most interesting is the point of a batter "tunneling" the pitch on its way, striking if it is in that tunnel and laying off if not. Makes complete sense and not necessarily at Odds with the William's thought process. In theory, a batter should know his own zone, and SHOULD be able to make good contact even if the pitch isn't a "good pitch to hit", in converse to the William's approach in that regard. The problem I see with that...not including all hitters KNOWING their hitting zone or always trusting it...is simply having the inate ability to adjust during their swing. To so degree, I think he is describing what is often referred to as being a "bad ball" hitter. Oliva and Puckett had that ability. And while Arraez is a more patient hitter, he also seems to have that special ability to adjust and put the bat on ball and hit it somewhere. Rosario, to me, is very reminiscent of Puckett, though not quite with the same results. Hits or XB hits or HR, he has an insane ability to barrell up on balls that others just can't. It's what makes him a good and sometimes great player. Of course, Eddie also thinks he can do that all of the time, which nobody can. And while it's cruelty to dead animal carcasses to continue beating the same one, just imagine how good he could be if he could hold back just a little, reign in his aggressiveness just a bit, and "tunnel" those pitches just a little more.

Anyone who played for the Yankees. There, I said it for all of us. In all seriousness, Jeter was a good ballplayer, but I agree he was very overrated. But, Yankee, east coast bias, etc. This goes back a few years but the guy I "hated" was Ricky Henderson. Hits, HR, SB, he just seemed to torment the Twins. Of course, he seemed to do that to everyone else too. I also didn't care for his attitude.

Love the pen but agree Crain should be plugged in their somewhere. JC Romero had 2 not very good seasons and 3 good ones amongst his 5. He's honorable mention at least. Francisco Liriano...oh what could have been...had 2 poor seasons, and we all know why, and 3 good/great ones. I think I'd have to put him in the rotation ahead of Silva or Milton, though I'm torn which one I'd pull.

Were I to guess, I'd say there will be a multi-level Cactus and Grapefruit milb season even with expanded ML rosters. Even abbreviated, there has to be some sort of milb season.

I hate when the Twins play the Royals and I am blacked out on the MLB streaming service. But I will watch the Royals on TV because. I work for a communication company. The NFL RedZone is popular for fans to see parts of games and follow along with stats for fantasy players. Perhaps MLB should look at something similar?

General comment/observation: There has been a lot of debate on some of these decade teams regarding 1B/OF and the such. But one thing we all realize is that the infield has been rather hit and miss at times. No secret huh? But while some guys are gone...Nunez, Dozier and Escobar...there seems to have been a shift in the depth and talent in the infield the last few years, THANKFULLY! Sano, now Donaldson, Polanco, Arraez, and even quality reserves like Adrianza and Marwin have changed the outlook. Lewis has huge upside. While the luster bas worn off one, there is a long road ahead for another, and some questions remain about a 3rd, Javier, Cavaco and Miranda offer optimism. And there are a couple of other recent college additions in the lower minors who have a ton of potential. Just a few years ago, Blenkenhorn would have been receiving hopeful wishes and dreams.