Trov

I agree with all three as possible guys to get looks, IF a season happens. Another thing to factor is if the league forces the 50 game season at the full prorate, many players may opt not to play sighting health concerns. Any pending FA may think about not playing because they would not want to risk a poor season in a 50 game season having that used against them. Players set for arbitration may think similar. This could lead to more open spots.

If we have a season, I hope this happens, but mostly in the playoffs. Nothing worse then being amazing during the season only to lay and egg in the playoffs. Sure you need to make it, but when you are expecting certain performances and then do not happen, that just makes me sad.

The owners counter, which was another press leaked non offer, of 50 games is crazy for a season. It shows how serious the owners may be about limiting the players pay this year. Lets review what has been in the press. Owners come out 82 games 50-50 split. Players reaction, non-starter. Then owners formal offer 82 games with sliding scale. Players again no way. Players counter with 114 full prorated pay, with opt out for players that have family members at high risk, not clear if the family has to live with them or not. Players still would get full pay even if they do not play under that opt out, and if they are not under that then no pay. If playoffs do not happen then pay can be deferred with full interest to counter inflation, not clear what interest rate would be. Owners, response is to counter with 50 games full prorate, again not a formal counter. These two sides are so far apart. I see no way of a season happening. I had hope early on, but with how things have progressed I see no way will they reach a deal. However, it is possible the owners could force the 50 games based on what many people read the March agreement. However, players could try to sight health and safety to not have a season. If they chose to do that, most would cry BS, as they wanted more games, thus more exposure, but then when less is happening they say not safe. We all know this is a money game, and frankly do not care which side wins, I want to watch baseball end of story. At this point I would be open for full nuclear option and have two full year shut down. Then have all the MLB owners declare bankruptcy and a new league forms where none of the MLB players can play because they are in a stand off with MLB. None of the MLB owners can own either because they are in stand off with players.

Although HR were up across the board, HRs have been up over the last several years. I do not doubt the ball was juiced last year. However, the change in swings and hitting approaches have also led to more HRs. A previous article pointed out that the Twins were very efficient at hitting them as well. The real question, how many were wall scrapers. Remember Joe's MVP season so many HRs fell in left field only a couple rows back. When he went outside so many failed to reach that first or second row. However, when guys like Cruz and Sano are hitting no doubters will a less juiced ball affect them that much? Most likely not. However, I doubt there will be a 2020 season based on current discussions.

If they can make the bamboo "pop" more similar to the traditional wood bats, I think they should be adopted by NCAA and High School. I know NCAA has changed the "pop" of the bats they use to be similar to wood bats, but if you can still the feel of a wood bat but the durability of composite bat that would be great. So often the question teams have is how will the power transition to wood bats, or how will the player transition to wood bats. This would lift that question in evaluations. Also, it would appear the bats would be safer for all involved. Lucky it is not a common situation where someone is hurt by a broken bat, but every time I see a bat splinter and go flying into a crowd, something that is much less likely now with extended netting, but sometimes it could go into dug out or batting circle. I know the fear of baseball would be the ability to make sure the "pop" is not altered by players. That is how the rule of one solid piece comes in, we know, there one solid piece and can be tested. In composite bats they are certified by the maker and sold to people in stores, which mitigates the risk because the company would not want to lose possible sales by not having proper bats. However, when the sale is directly to the player like bats are, that increases the risk of not following the rules. I doubt the MLB will ever adopt it, unless there is some extreme environmental concerns for traditional bats. However, for non professional baseball it may be a good option. I know I have thought of wood bat leagues but worried of breaking the bat and the recurring cost, but having a durable light bat may make me rethink that.

I posted in a similar article not too long ago. I believe he should be in, but think it will take the vets committee to do it. The problem with the hall of fame is that it makes unfair comparisons to others in other eras, but does not look at the era the player played in. One reason many starting pitchers will have issues for awhile. Also, voters look at other things, like personality, which Joe had none of in the media. He lacked leadership and post-seasons success, which will hurt him as well. However, he was one of the best hitting catchers ever. Sure, no power compared to some, but he still was one of best hitting catchers ever. The position eventually hurt him late in his career. Which will hurt his candidacy, for some, but other will accept it is hard for catchers. Now, I do feel he was greatly overvalued as a defensive catcher. He was league average overall, and depending on the defensive evaluators you look at they agree. He was above average at throwing out runners and general covering his position. However, he never tried to pick off runners, and was terrible at blocking balls in dirt. His lack of blocking pitches led to the average defense. Sure, you can point to times he made great snags on wild pitches, every catcher does. However, so many times he would not get low and block a ball in dirt and would get under him. I also had personal issues with his approach with runners on base, but he was still a great hitting catcher, and considered top catcher for most of the years he was catching and that should be HOF worthy.

I am glad to read this. I was wondering when I heard of the minor league purge and many teams not paying beyond June. I had heard other teams but not of the Twins. It shows how they are not cheap, I pointed out they are paying above league average payroll too. This great that they are not making hundreds of more jobless people. Sure, the $400 is not that much, but they could say you lost your job, keep in mind they would not be able to collect unemployment either.

When you read about how deep some of the guys went in some of them it shows how much of a crap shoot MLB draft is really. I mean most of the time many agree on the top few or number 1, but many times they all miss. In recent memory remember Mark Appel who was drafted 8th did not sign, then 1st and did sign. Yet to make the majors at age of 25 and has not performed well in minors. Only reason he still has a job is he was drafted so high. I could go off on why I would never have drafted him, but it shows how teams miss so badly, but sometimes all teams agree that the guy is the guy. It is an imperfect science.

This was the exact situation I was thinking of. I am not one that says we need to save our guy for the 9th. I am very on board with using your top arm in 7th or 8th if the situation calls for it. However, just because May or Duffy has performed well in 7th or 8th does not mean they will do as well in the 9th. Some guys just cannot handle it on the mental side. Throw them in bases loaded in 7th and they shut it down, but put them in no one on in 9th and they fail. Some times the mental part of the 9th is too much for great pitchers to handle.

I have not been on the site all weekend, and missed the Kepler thing until now. I have talked and written so much over the last few days as it pertains to the recent events. I believe Max's post and follow up statement shows why the outrage of people involved is warranted. The lack of knowledge of the situation raises the biggest issue. Why turning a blind eye to things because it does not affect you is what leads to the issues in the first place. I could go on and on and have shed too many tiers and too many personal outrage I feel for what happened to Mr. Floyd and so many others. However, if anything positive comes from this it will be letting the uneducated know what the issues really are and shed more light on it. I strongly believe pages like this should be left to good open debate on sports where we can argue about players and other such things. Typically I would say other issues should be left to those pages. However, at times like these some issues need to be spread to all media, to all people, because the fact of the matter is, it could happen to so many people, ourselves, our family, our friends. I hope this time more happens.

I am not siding with either, I am trying my best to show both sides of the argument. The players have a very valid argument. The owners argument is the pay to the players were based on money coming in with fans coming in to games and paying ticket prices, food, and beverage prices. The insane mark up on those products. On a business standpoint, if you hire someone to do a job you are expected to pay them for the services. However, in contract world of law, there are areas where when situations that were not expected by both sides, then the contract is not fully covering because the situation is not expected by either side. I doubt anyone expected orders by governments to not allow fans in stands. Sure you can expect lower attendance from some years or hope for higher and you accept that risk a team, but when governments order no fans that is a different thing all together. That is the owners argument, they were expecting to have fans this year to get that money. They cannot now. Think of it this way. Say you contract 10 people to work a catering event that was going to have 100 people at it. Then government comes along and says you can only have 25 people at it. The workers you contracted would say well you can still have the event we deserve to get full pay for that event, despite only needing maybe 3 or 4 people for the event. The other 6 or 7 want full pay. The contract most likely did not have a clause should government not allow the full gathering this is what will happen. Both sides have a valid argument. Yes, the above situation is slightly different, but best I could think of off top of head. Also, take note of fact that there is expected to be at least 4 additional players at MLB pay level then first expected too. Again, both sides have arguments that they are right. My point is if neither is willing to give or both willing to meet in middle then no baseball and we all lose.

As I agree minor league players are underpaid, I would point out, no one is forcing these men to do it. Yes, if you hope to ever reach the majors you have to do it, but really, the players that have best chance did get a decent bonus upon signing, maybe not millions but more than what many make in a couple of years. 10th round players slot value was around 140K. Where I live that can get you by for a couple of years without making more. So as I feel for the minor league players and there low pay, it is something they choose to do. They could choose to have a different job and make more money doing something different. However, they choose to do this in hopes they will one day get the call to the majors, or because they love the game and maybe will one day get to coach it at high levels too. It is not like these men go into this blind. Everyone knows what they are getting into. It is not an easy life for low level picks, but if they have the drive and willingness they can pay off in the end. I am not going to cry for the players as they can go out and get other jobs. I want to point out this is for U.S. and Canada born players, that are subject to the draft. For the international players I feel very sorry for them. The U.S. teams cultivate third world central american and dominican countries taking children into baseball acadamies trying to poach them from their countries, many for very little money, so get the big pay day, but much of that ends up not going to them. For the low paid players they get more low pay and stuck in a country where they only know baseball English and most likely could not stay and in the country trying to get other work. So they are faced with a much different choice, then U.S. and Canada players. They are the ones we should feel for, in my opinion. Take the scraps the MLB teams throw you, or go back to your country where you most likely face violence and robberies or kidnappings because you may have money. The MLB act they are doing a favor for these kids, but really it is not that way.

Torii is a no. As good as he was for his career he was never HOF level. He was regarded for his defense, but offense gets you into the hall, defense just keeps you on the field. He should go down as one of the best to defend the outfield, he was one of the best stealing those HRs. However, he was never the feared hitter. Sure he had some good seasons hitting overall, but at least I was never thinking Torii is coming up something good will happen. Donaldson still has a career so not sure why he would be a question. If he can play at a high level into late 30's he will have a good shot at it.

I wonder if the increased pull rate was based on pitches and adjustment to them or change in approach. I have heard the approach the Twins want for Sano is to look to drive fastballs up the middle and the he should be able to pull off speed. If he is getting more off speed, and he would be staying off the outside off speed he should have increase in pull rate. I would want to see his hard hit rate to BAIP not BAIP to pull rate. I am of the stance if you hit the ball hard, unless right at someone, you will get a hit. As mentioned it is harder to do a pull shift for righty because 1st base can only go so far away from first base.

My expectation is he will not get in by normal vote, but has a chance via veteran committee. He numbers as a catcher are HOF, but when you include the injury seasons late in career he will lose votes. Also, his personality will hurt him, it should not be a factor but will be. Also the expectations of him and what people wanted him to be was never in line with what he was. What he was was great, and could be HOF, that is where vets come in.

Well, if the players agreed to 50-50 split they would share in the revenues when they are higher, but players refuse to do that. Which means they want more than a 50-50 split, or they are not willing to accept any risk for loss of fans or revenue. Of course the players do not want a cap, but that means no floor either. They want to be able to make as much money as possible, and who would blame them. However, the owners claim, no knowing how accurate it really is, is that without fans they are are expected to take a 40% budget loss. They are asking the players to take additional cuts based on fact the budget will be at a great loss. I would imagine for some ballparks the percent from gate and concessions may be lower than others and some are higher. For easy math, not an estimate of money, I will lay out how the three plans would basically work. The estimated payroll for players across the league for full pay is about 4 billion. So under prorated plan that players want they would take about 2 billion. If the ESPN estimate of 3 billion is accurate, then that means players get 2 billion of the 3 billion or 66% of the revenue pie. Owners countered with a 50 50 split, based on new economics with no fans. So the players would lose about 500 million under this, based on the estimate of 3 billion. The new plan by owners with sliding scale involves a lot more math, but would seem from what I read would be asking the players to take about 40% of the pie and even big hit to higher paid players. I believe I read the 35 mil plus guys would take only like 7 mil, or 10 mil less than prorated. but the lower paid players would have much less of a cut to salary. So that breaks down the plans. Of course the players want the top one, and owners the bottom one, but the 50 50 share seems fair, but players say is a non-starter sharing if risk of having a no fan season. If the players get their way, then the expectation is the team will cut many costs elsewhere to make up for the differnce. Now of course no need to pay people for working games or ticket sales, so they will get laid off. No need for advertising to come to games or other marketing so they will get laid off and any plans to pay for bobble heads, shirt, hats and other give aways, assuming they had not already been purchased would be dropped, so those business can lose out on that money, which could lead to those people getting laid off, or cut hours. Much of the security staff can be laid off. Since the minor league players will not be playing they will not get paid so there is savings there and they can go get a job to make up for the loss, of the little amount of money they do get paid. Now those things I mentioned may happen anyways, but many teams indicated they would still pay employees for the season, but that may change if the players need to make more money. Now of course if no revenue is coming in then this is likely to happen anyways. The point I am trying to make, as the players and owners fight, it is the little guys that suffer, and wish both would just understand how bad for the league this is. On a side note, Twins are 17th on payroll just above what is league average. League average is 136 mil Twins are at 137 mil.

I will try to be as neutral as possible when I post this. First, from what I have read, many players already like the formal proposal with the sliding scale over the revenue sharing. Do I think the purpose of this proposal was to get votes from the lower paid players that most likely need the money to live, yes I do. Do I think the players have a legitimate argument that they should get a full compensation for the contracts they signed? Sure. However, I doubt anywhere in any provision of the contract was there a clause saying, Should games be able to be played but with no fans due to pandemic situation the compensation will be X. Do the players also have a valid argument that they entered into an agreement in March on what will happen when games start back up? Yes they did and it is valid, however, the Owners also have valid argument that their understanding was this was under normal conditions. I have not seen the word for word agreement reached, but from what I have read in articles I believe both have a valid argument. It makes sense that the expectation would be a prorated pay, but when the contracts were made it was with the assumption fans would be at the games and that financials were considered when agreeing to the contract. Of course, the team assumes the risk that attendance would be down regardless, but I doubt either side would expect zero fans at all games. The players argument is they signed to play a game, regardless of how many people watched. However, they had to understand that if fans do not watch there is no reason to play the game. The players will argue the owners are trying to screw them and are greedy, well sure they are greedy, but the players also are greedy are they not? The owners are trying to look like the good guys coming to the table with options to make financial sense across the board, and players, as of now keep saying no deal we want full pay for play. Which this sounds reasonable. People who argue the owners are billionaires they can afford it, shows you have never and will never run a successful business. MLB is not a charity for entertainment for people. For the people who side with pay the players the prorated contract amount and make the owners take the hit, this means you believe business should be willing to operate at a loss, because they can and you want to keep going. Just because the owners have billions does not mean we should expect that they lose millions so we can be entertained. I mean if I ran a business at a loss, I would raise cost to public or cut internal cost, like labor costs. Else eventually I would go bankrupt. My question, how many years should owners take losses? How much should they be expected to lose? Of course we do not see their books and will never know how much they make or lose each year, but players will continue to seek the same level or higher salaries, but for all we know stadiums will never be able to operate at full capacity again, unlikely but we do not know how long reduced attendance will be required. Will players accept a cut in pay under those conditions? Maybe the players can get their prorated pays, and to make up for lost attendance revenue, we start a go fund me for the teams? I mean the real people that pay the players are the fans. Sure it comes from the owners, but it is the fans that pay, because no fans means no games. I personally would be fine with owners say no games and players get no pay. MLB could just fold up and say we are done. What would the players do then? The owners have all the power, but they understand making some money is better than no money, but if they are asked to lose money they will close and I would not hold it against them. If I ran an entertainment business and not enough people were coming to pay my bills I would either raise prices and make the people that were coming to cover my costs or I would close and have the people that were coming lose out on that entertainment. That is just how business works. Both sides do need to understand though, the more they fight over money the worse they both look and will lose fans, which will hurt both of them. While both sides fight over the pie, we are the ones that hold the pie and we can take it away from both of them. If we stop watching or going to games, when we can go again, then owners make no money, and players will make no money. We have the power, we just need to assert it.

Yes, every team plays under same rules for the season. Could who makes the playoffs be adjusted due to shorter season sure, but that does not make who wins any less legitimate than any other. 82 games will still be good enough to separate the teams. If they did just a tournament like World Baseball Classic or something like that, then no that is not a good way to determine who should be champ because hot streaks and slumps, which is part of the game, could greatly change the outcomes. That happens in playoffs all the time though. The most interesting will be how some pitchers will perform in late in the season with the reduced work load. May we end up with a different team than what would have been expected in full season, sure, but teams will have to adjust to new situation and that is sign of good team.

This draft will be a very interesting draft to look back on and see were the diamond in roughs were. We will say how was this person missed by so many teams. Think about how often a guy shoots up boards because of his season leading up to draft. Twins have in recent drafts made picks based on that. The HS kids are so hard to judge as a junior some times because of how they grown from ages 16 to 18. For college kids similar the lower classmen may not have the same exposure as they would normally because of loaded programs. I would read so many scouting reports about how a guy jumped up boards because of breakout seasons or after finally getting a shot at being regular at specific position that was blocked by a previous star player. The good front offices will need to read more into players with less to work with. I hope our front office is one of them, and believe they are, but you never know.

I will only answer the questions I have much to add. 1) Garver will continue to hit well. His approach is very good and he will not get himself out. Sure, he may take some called third strikes but he will never chase either. He will make that ump call that third strike on the edges. Pitcher will try to throw get me over curves at time, but my guess Mitch will figure that out and crush those as well. 3) Sano will be terrible at first for awhile. He will drop some easy pop ups just like he did at third. He will drop some good throws. However, we will not care when he is crushing the ball. If he is not crushing the ball then he will see the bench more often and will not see his terrible defense. Crazy to think he was signed as a SS and even played there a little in his very young years. 4) Arraez will not slump, depending on what you call a slump. Will he hit as well as first year maybe not, but he will have good OBP. and I think eventually he will get more benefit of doubt calls by umps when he looks and shakes his head at pitches that go by. 7) Buxton will not stay healthy, not because he is injury prone, but because he plays the game with reckless abandon and crashes into walls at full speed because he believes he is superman that can catch every thing. Until he dials it back a tiny bit to be more prepared to jump into the walls he will keep getting hurt, no way around it. Torii needs to teach him how to set yourself up for a good wall jump. Really, the issue is Buxton covers so much ground so quickly that he does not get set up with proper technique to protect himself on jumps and dives. Hopefully the kid learns this for his own sake. Starting back a few more steps and letting a couple of singles drops will help. 9) I expect Cruz will continue to hit well. I agree father time is undefeated but some guys go longer. There has been many good hitters that can play into 40's, some maybe with a little chemical help, but when all you are expected to do is crush pitches and nothing else you can still do it. What in Cruz recent years suggest he will just fall off cliff? He has short quick swing without much movement that helps.

Pretty sure each on the list had that conversation with Harmon. I have heard a few stories from people who have had personal interactions with Harmon, and he was an amazing man that understood the importance of the fans. He would stand outside and sign for every fan that waited for him. When he was asked, why he would be willing to do that, he response was if they are willing to wait it is the least I can do. Without the fans I would be farming. That is also why he wanted to make sure they could read it, because for him it was just a few seconds of his life, but for the fan it could mean a lifetime of memories to say that is his signature, and everyone could look at it and know. Personally, I wish more players would think about Harmon and his wisdom. Too many players feel entitled to play a game for insane amounts of money that fans pay hard earned money to watch. If fans did not pay, players would have to find another job. Players like Blake Snell get to me because they act like this is their birth right to play for millions and fans should be grateful they are willing to entertain us. When really, the players should be grateful we are willing to pay them.

From what was reported prior to his hiring Falvey had a huge role in the pitching development in Cleveland. Of course we will never know how much of a roll he really had, but when Twins were looking for GM there were many reports Falvey was on the rise because of his actual involvement in developing Cleveland pitchers, which was known for finding diamonds in the rough, and continuing to have reliable starters in the wings. So to say there is zero evidence or to call it idiotic is going a little far. This reports were from baseball insiders that had dealings with Cleveland and knew Falvey. He may not have made the final calls in Cleveland but reports are he had huge influence on how Cleveland developed pitchers. I guess you can take those reports as smoke and say there is no evidence Falvey had anything to do with Cleveland pitching success, but I tend to believe them. Do you give Falvey credit for Dobnik? Independant pitcher that flew through minors to start a playoff game? 29 other teams could have snagged him up, but Falvey must have seen something that the other 29 did not see. Not going to say 1 pitcher for 1 year of success makes a guru, Dobnik may fall off and be below replacement going forward, but first season looked good.

"Mauer is definitely not the most exciting interview or the most infectious personality, but he was in the lives of Minnesotans for so long, that a detail of his life would certainly be a must watch." That is an understatement. For as good as he was, he was about as boring as it got. There has been a documentary on Kirby, it was done in 1996, had it in VHS. An updated one would be great through. I was not even born when he debuted, and was so young when he was prime so barely remember it, but the more I read the more I am convinced he was at a point the best player in the game. I wonder if he would even be considered a top prospect this day in age just based on his height and lack of power as a kid. Most likely not a first round pick, twice like he was nor a top 10 prospect at all. The 91 season would be cool, maybe not 7 part, but the worst to first series and historic moments would be great. ESPN ranked game 7 of that series like number 2 of all time WS games. Game 6 was pretty high too.

For me, many of the questions about what the taxi squad is and how it works service time and transferring players needs to be answered before decisions can be made. I would agree having extra catcher or two. I would agree with load of pitchers. I would also think players that can play either premier defensive positions, CF and SS as well as utility players would serve best. I would shy away from offensive only players with limited defensive value, like Rooker. Unless Rooker shows he can rake at a level you are fine with negative defense, but when Buxton gets hurt, assuming he will, I would rather have someone that can defend center better than Kepler and let Kepler stay in RF. Even if this means a slightly less productive offense, we are pretty deep in that area losing our 9 hitter who is in for defense already we would want to replace for defense.

Part will depend on how the rules of expanded roster and taxi squad will work. I could be wrong, but believe I heard roster will go to 30 players, so an extra 4, and there will be a large taxi squad of 60 players that can be moved onto roster. I am not clear as to how those moves will be affected for time wise. So first, the 60 is well beyond the 40 man roster, so will you first need to move them onto 40 man? Will it be an "option" so limited to only players with them left, or a DL trip required of 15 days? Will there be many liberal moves allowed? This will have great affect on who will be on roster and how it will be used each game. The more liberal pitchers can be moved in and out will lead to more use of them and swapping around, much like they have in past couple years but this could be even more often. Regardless, I think shorter leashes for sure on pitchers due to importance of each game. I would expect much more of the hot hand for hitters taking over. Meaning if any player has a slump I would expect others to replace them quickly and if a player, regardless of experience is hot they will stay in line up. Once they slump they will be back out. Many times we see a guy with a quick start in first month and tail off, but they keep getting time because they were hot before. I do not expect that too much. The reverse is true that a guy used to do well in past seasons so they get extend look early in season to turn it around. We do not have that much time to make that happen now.