Trov

I am far from some MLB draft guy, mostly because just about every one is a crap shoot. Sure there are some that every says is a cannot miss All-Star, a few that come to mind are Griffy, A-Rod, Harper, and I am sure there was a few more where people were right on that. However, most of the time you never know and the number 1 can be a bust and the number 20 or later becomes the best one in the draft. That being said, I have read up on Lackey and the sounds of it his bat is expected to play at MLB level no matter what, and he has ability to move off catcher if a team wants too. So drafting him is for his bat, and if he can stay at catch great, but could get moved to 3B or corner OF spot it sounds like as possible long term plan. I get the compare SS to C as generally high ranked catchers do not always pan out, and their shelf life is limited. I would not be surprised if Sox do go Lackey as his bat is strong, and if they think he can stick at catcher and move quickly they may want him being they are devoid of catching right now. I am never a fan of drafting of need, but they have shown some strong infield play so going a fast moving SS could be good, but less of a pressing need. Their top prospect is a SS/3b. Sox have done some crazy things. If Lackey does go, number 1, then it will be interesting to see what Tampa does. Will they go college or prep SS, or go pitcher? I think they will be less likely to go Cholowsky if Sox pass on him, but you never know. If Cholowsky falls to Twins no way they pass on him, which will be real interesting on what we do with all the recent college SS. I always say, never can have too many SS though, they are valuable in trades, or can move to any other position than Catcher generally.

I am sure Houston gets moved soon, he has nothing left to show at High A. Hopefully he adjusts quickly to AA and earns himself a spring training invite next year.

Part of things is they need to decide is he going to be a full back end guy or not. If he is, he can change his pitching usage to really work on 2 or 3 max and drop the pitches that are weakest. When you are only expected to go 1 inning 2 max you do not need as much of a mix of pitches because hitters will not see you a second time, hopefully.

You can never have too many guys that can play SS. If Houston can field at elite level, and hit at average level, he will be SS. If Culpepper can hit at above average to elite level, but average defense at SS, he will get moved off SS and play 3b assuming he is average to above average defender at 3b. Lee is not good enough hitter or defender to force playing time. He has shown some better hitting, but unless he steps up more he will get passed by. Lewis, if he can bounce back to his offense he showed early in career, and so far after being sent down he has been crazy hot. Keasahall is really the wild card in the mix over the years. He has shown he could have a solid bat, not great this year, but his glove is just not there. He does not have the power to slot in typical DH roll. He could be the odd man out down the road, as Lee could slot into utility bench roll as a switch hitter and defense flexibility that has value.

Rosario is still young enough to make a surge up the prospect lists. He was a HS draftee and was high on some lists for a few years but then stalled out. If he can continue to do what he has this past month the rest of the year he will fly back up lists.

I full agree with your point 1, I do not expect prices to drop, and agree the prices are always based on what the market will pay. I do not expect the players and owners to say, hey lets get together to lower ticket prices. My point is, why do fans take sides on this? Why do the owners and players put their offers out in the media trying to get fans to "side" with them? It makes no sense to me as a fan. At least as it comes to how you splitting up the billions of dollars. It is not like fans are going to vote themselves. If there is a labor stoppage, fans will not say well I side with players or owners and am fine with the work stoppage until that side wins this. No, fans will either get upset there is no baseball or they will watch the many other options of sports now. As to point 2, I also agree that MLB has been having issues getting the multi sport athletes to pick baseball more recently, and it part that is because unless you are a top 10 pick, it will take minimum like 5 years to get a decent pay, compared to NFL/NBA, and like 10 years to get a huge contract, unless you are a mega star/prospect. Hell, most NFL players will be retired before MLB player will get a super deal. If money is the main factor choosing NFL or NBA, all things being equal, would be the better path. That being said, only a slight few are elite enough at both they can make that choice. Very few NBA players will be elite at baseball, as well. More of the NFL world are, but sometimes you need to ask yourself, do I want to shorten my life and get CTE for sure by playing NFL for the faster money, or can I be elite at baseball and have a better long term life playing baseball?

First, he is ranked 19 on the TD list, and 21 on MLB list coming into the year(MLB adjusts after the draft). He was a 3rd round pick in 2024 out of college and will turn 23 this season. This is his second pro season, last year played only 42 games. He is listed as a catcher and outfielder. He bats right handed as well. He has been hot this season overall, even more so for a catcher. If he can stay at catcher and produce the level he has, I would say he is a legit prospect and should climb the boards some, but if he cannot stay at catcher I see him topping out at the AA AAA levels as a soft hitting outfielder. He does not have much power, but still putting up OPS .844, which is helped a ton by his .404 on base percentage. If he can maintain that on base percentage and be passible on defense at catcher he should have chance to make majors, but if not his lack of power and overall defense will get him passed on prospect lists.

This is why you play 162 and not just 60. Going into the year, most fans expected a near last place finish in the division, knew our offense was going to struggle, starting pitching was a big question mark, and pen was going to be bad. With the hot start of some hitters and great starting pitching and passible pen over first 2 months fans had hope we could be like Major League and come together for something. However, the flaws are starting to really show and the team is starting to do what we expected to begin the season.

Completely agree, not sure how he makes the "hot prospect list" he is not a prospect. He is a career minor leaguer and only way he makes MLB ever is major list of injuries. Diaw should be taking his spot in AA as the primary catcher soon as well.

It is because those leagues understand that when you do a revenue sharing plan between ownership and players, making the league better and more profits work for both. The issue in MLB the history is players never trusted the owners. They had to sue to get free agency to begin with. Then they raised collusion in the early 90's for the top FA not getting fair free market offers, at least in their mind. Since the mid 90's every other league has done a cap of some kind, with a floor and revenue splits between teams and players. Bryce Harper came out after the owners offer and basically said, no way will this happen, and "we" meaning owners and players should not do anything to slow the growth of the game like the 90's strike did because there is even more competition for fans time and money in sports these days. Smart point, but with the line in the sand of no way will we agree to a cap and we still do not trust owners means no way will be be close to a deal any time soon. The other issue for players is what is baseball revenue? Owners say, ticket sales, merch sales, media rights are basically baseball revenue. Players argue that the real estate the owners have around stadiums should be included, because if they did not play the real estate holds less value to bars and restaurants because no games mean less patrons before, during, and after games. Their opinion is since the owners own it, then they are making more money off baseball. I get their argument, but I am of the opinion is you could not go after some 3rd party for a share of the money that just happens to own property around the stadiums, so why lump the team ownership groups in? If I own a building that has bar near target field, I am not going to pay money to the players as part of my lease to the bar owner, or if I am the bar owner a share of my profits to the players. Nor would I to the owners. As I said from my original post fans should not car how the billions of dollars get split, if anything we should ask it gets reduced so make watching games more affordable. Why does each side state their position as to why it is better for the game, but neither say, maybe we should cut ticket costs down so families can come to games and not pay hundreds of dollars?

I will always compare him to Sandy Koufax. If you look at career numbers they are basically the same, outside the playoff numbers. bWAR actually has Santana higher in less career games. Koufax did have the WS rings, including dominating the Twins 2 of his 3 games to win the 65 series. The big difference between the two is Koufax career ended with him being one of the best, if not the best in the game at the time. His early career was not good but he became amazing. Santana had his peak years in the middle of his career, where he was the best in the game I would say, but then he got hurt and kept trying to come back. Had he just called it quits like Koufax did, I bet he gets the nod by the voters because they would not have looked at his empty last few years and held it against him. That is exactly why I believe he gets into the Hall via the era vote.

I am fully on board with trading him. I still do not believe he is "for real" in terms of what he has put up. Maybe, since he has finally been given a full shot and was maybe stuck behind better players in Philly. However, he is 30 and will not be expected to carry value very long into future. With all that, get what you can for the guy at this point.

Hitting is constantly about adjusting to how you are pitched. Some hitters adjust fasters than others. Pitchers will continue to do the same thing over and over until you show them it will not work. I remember Buck for years would chase every slider low and away. Most of the time they were never close. Many at bats it was 3 in a row. I am sure in his head he kept thinking this will be that fast ball for the strike, but another slider. He finally started to just stay of anything low and away, for the most part, knowing that he is not likely to do much with the fastball there either. Martin will just have to start taking those breaking balls more. Very few hitters can cover every zone and do it well. Most hitters need to have a plan and attack when they get the pitch they want.

I would love to know what led to the complete 180 hitter in Lewis. The difference in pitching in AAA and MLB is not generally enough to go from slash line of .163/.261/.279 to .358/.414/.981. It is not like he was not given every chance to break out at MLB level and just kept failing. I do think he should and will get called back up sooner than later. Hopefully he comes back and keeps on crushing.

This is just like when Berrios had 1.5 years of control. First, do you say we do not have a chance this year and trade him for best deal possible during trade deadline? Do you play out the season and try to extend him in offseason or trade him during the offseason? Do you go into next year on a contract year and see how things are going and trade him at that deadline if warranted? All options are out there. My guess he will not give a discount in contract, he does not strike me as one that would take less to stay, so they will need to pay up for him. Do you think he will maintain into his mid 30's? I cannot say. He has had questions about health as well. If the team thinks they can make playoffs this year, you do not trade him, as he is your best pitcher. If however, you feel this is not your year, this trade deadline is when you could fetch most for him. What that is, who knows. Cleveland did this several times in the past decade trading away one if not their best starting pitchers during the year, and still competed. In part it was because they had a ton of pitching behind that. We are getting a little thin at starting pitching right now.

A luxury tax is essentially a soft cap without player movement restrictions. If the players agree to a larger tax penalty, which they do not want, because they argue the same that a luxury tax is a soft cap. They want even want to make it easier for teams to break the luxury tax by only making it a money thing, not any other penalty. Would increased revenue sharing fix the issue? I doubt it. Unless you greatly overhaul how players reaching FA are managed right now. The problem is if a mid or small market team makes a splash in FA and signs a big time deal, if that player gets hurt, or plays well below expectations, not rare for a player in mid-30's then you are stuck because you cannot go out and cut them paying them a ton to not play and pay a high money replacement. The big market teams can when there is no restriction on player movements by going over the luxury tax. The only difference between a soft cap and luxury tax is what team penalties beyond money out the door is there. Like in the NBA they have a soft cap with tax aprons that as you go too high above you are restricted on what FA you can sign, and what trades you can do. Before that, you had teams willing to pay tons of money going over the tax. Right now in MLB you have teams deferring tons of money on some contracts or signing players to super long deals to manipulate the tax level as well. They know some of the players will not be playing until they are 43 years old, but they signed the deal paying them until then to save money now, knowing it will be worth less later.

You cannot have too many catching prospects. If you are sold on his offense and concerned he will break down at catcher, reports are he can move to 3rd or at least 1st I am sure, if other catchers get ahead of him. You have to like the growth he has made over the years which would suggest he can continue to grow and learn and adapt.

When I saw the owners proposal and the players I thought similar no way will we see a full season next year. The two are going to play the long game of chicken and see who swerves first. The players will never just agree to a hard cap, and I doubt the owners will hold that strong on that either. I think if a cap will be done, it will be a soft cap. I would agree luxury tax is similar to that, but a soft cap and put rules in teams over it signing FA or trading for MLB rostered players and what they are making type of thing. It appears a floor will come into play. The players will try to hold strong on the cap situation and push for that floor. The owners if they want the cap, they will need to make concessions elsewhere. The biggest area I think they could push the younger players to agree to a soft cap would be with agreement of earlier FA. I would propose 5 years of service time, or 29 at conclusion of season or by start of the next season. This will make it that they get to cash in a little bit sooner, and reduce chance of service time manipulation because they would be free agent at 29 no matter years of service. The problem with the floor by itself is that money will be less likely to get spread out to the mid-tier players, but teams will just look to spend more on star player, and continue to use the youth to out work their earnings. Even if you raise the minimum the dynamic will still remain the same.

As my original post highlighted, the fans should not care who had the better proposal, I do not care how the billions of dollars get split up, I want competitive baseball and not seeing all the top FA going to dodgers, yankees, mets, with a few exceptions of other bigger market teams, and the few splashes of mid-market teams. Both sides are trying to "win" in the fans eyes, but the fans should not care how the money is split up in my opinion.

I wonder what has changed between AAA and MLB, is it just the pitching, the mindset, did he make a quick adjustment? Depending on how they determine that, you need to bring him back up at some point to see was it real change or just facing subpar pitching in AAA. If he really has bounced back, then you deicide what position and/or is he staying. If the relationship is soured, you want to rebuild any value he would have in trade. If he is back to being an expected all-star that can carry a line up, you want to know that, and you can leverage that in a trade. You could use his AAA numbers and history, to try to get some value but it would never be as much than letting him do it at MLB level again.

First, I am not a fan of the owners and players using the media to release what they are proposing. They both are trying to win the fight in the public eye, and really I doubt any fans care because they are fighting over amounts of money very few fans will ever see or can even think about. It is also the fans money that is being fought over. Personally, I wish there was a vast reduction in player's pay and a cap on what owners can take in as revenue and let the cost of attending games drop and all other costs, but that will not happen. All that being said, Yesterday MLBPA sent their proposal for new CBA. The proposal highlights are this: Doubling the minimum salary for players on 40 man rosters; Shifting revenue sharing from increase in media sharing but decrease in ballpark revenue sharing; creating a tax on low spending teams(essentially a soft salary floor); increasing the cut off of the tax so big spending teams can spend more; getting rid of the qualifying offer, but still awarding comp picks for losing players in FA, or awarding teams for signing players in FA to large contracts; making players FA at age 30 with at least 5 years service time, but allowing a qualifying offer for a 6th year, of which then would be an arbitration year if player rejected the qualifying offer; Taking away any penalties for going over the tax level, other than the financial tax, right now teams will lose draft picks; Increase in bonus for pre-arbitration players that get awards; Increasing the super 2 pool of players; I mainly wanted to comment on how I feel this would help create a more balanced and competitive league. Also, I am a fan of home grown players staying with their teams for most of their careers. Does this proposal help meet those two things? For the second part it could help that, as the "floor" would cause teams to have to spend and they may spend it all on that home grown talent. Also, there is incentive of signing a big contract for a player. Keeping the competition close though does not seem to be met. First, they would raise the tax and have the floor half of the tax. At first look that would say sure now teams will spend more and keep their FA or go out and try to get them. However, the problem of a couple of teams spending crazy compared to other teams would not be fixed. This would still make the top few players get the crazy high deals across the top 6 teams or so, and the mid and low market teams would be forced to spend more on the second tier guys, similar to how it already is. Really all this does is increase how much money teams spend on players, but does not cap how it is spent. The top players will still earn crazy more than the second tier and the bottom tiers will earn more, but still relative to the rest will be much less. Being my goal is to have parity in the league and keeping home grown players, I personally think something like the NBA soft cap, with restrictions of bring in players after you cross that cap would be better. It could not be exactly like the NBA, but without restricting the top teams from just signing the top FA every year and trading for and signing all the top guys to long term deals, because other than loss of money, there is nothing to stop them from doing it you have no risk of getting it wrong. Mid and small market teams have much larger risk of getting a big signing wrong as it may prevent you from signing someone else because you spent your money on a different player, you have to choose more wisely. Big markets if they get one wrong, you trade them and pay for them to play else where, DFA them, or some other options and just replace with next one. Personally, without a soft cap of some kind, there will never be parity in the league. I am not pro owners and them keeping money, I am pro parity. I am all for the players getting paid fair share, but without a way to stop big market teams from taking all the top players the parity issue will never be fixed.

What I have liked about Shelton compared to Rocco is the using the starting to pitchers more. Rocco was married to analytics as the best way to manage starting pitchers, he is not alone in that. Data showed Twins were not using starters all too much less than most other teams, but he would do it even when the game did not dictate a reason to pull a starter. Shelton will ride his starters those extra hitters and innings. Additionally, he is letting the pitchers get out of their own jams. Sure not always works, but he is not just pulling them the moment they are in trouble in like the 5th. Sometimes it has worked sometimes they blow up, but sometimes the pen blows up too. In terms of the pen the main issue I have is trying to get too many 2 inning outings late in games. I am fine with 2 innings from a pen guy, but 2 inning saves are not common and it makes different mindsets for pitchers when they are asked to go out a second inning to close out a game. I do like his willingness to move on from certain players like Wallner and Lewis. I felt he was too trusting of Wallner early in year and not willing to trust Martin who was hot. I think as the year has gone on though he is for sure willing to make changes faster than Rocco would have.

With all rules there needs to be lines drawn, and if you leave too much to "intent" it makes it hard for the person enforcing the rule to manage. I agree, there was no intent by the pitcher to use his shirt to catch the ball, and as announcers said you will most likely never see again a ball do that. I mean he was lucky it did not hit him square in the side because that would have caused some damage. I remember CC Sabathia having a very baggy jersey and if that was considered a catch, for an out, then I could see a lot of pitchers trying to gain that little edge and have baggy jerseys for the once in a lifetime chance it happens to them.

It will be interesting what happens over the next couple months to see how the team feels about keeping him all year and possible off-season trade or resign. Falvey would have tried to sign to like a 3 year deal, of which would be rejected and he would have delt him most likely. Will the new FO give a longer offer? Based on Ryan's age he will be 31 at FA time, he will most likely be seeking 5 plus year deal. I personally, would never want to give a pitcher of his age that long of a deal. If we are competitive this year going into July I could see the FO keeping him around all year and reevaluating in the off-season. If you can get him on a Lopez type extension 3 years at cost you willing to pay I would look to lock him up, but history says most pitchers do not live up to their contracts after age 30 if they sign long term deals. The main ones that do are HOF level guys generally.

You will get a greater return this year because he would not be just a rental but you get the rest of this year and a full year next year. Teams will be more willing to give up bigger prospects for that. Additionally, when you have that full year, you can put in a qualifying offer so if he does sign elsewhere you get draft comp back, which increases what a team will give up in trade, if you only get for half year you do not get to put on the offer and he walks for nothing.