Trov

Just saw that MLB has new proposal, not sent to players yet. 76 games at 75% prorated pay. My guess is players will again stand hard and say no reduce in pay. That has been their stance the whole time. Maybe they will counter with more games, but full prorate as they did before. I find it interesting how often the MLB is leaking their stances. This hurts the process because the whole purpose is two fold. One, to get the public on the owner sides, by either showing they are trying, or they are willing to work something out. The owners are trying to come across as reasonable and willing to make a deal. The second reason, get the info to the players as a whole and not just the player reps. For those who are not part of a union. The two sides work out a deal to send to the people being represented and then the people being represented will vote. They can tell their leaders what they want, but they do not normally know what is being talked about, unless the representatives tell them. So by leaking to public what they are thinking of proposing the players may tell the union leadership they would be willing to accept it and tell the leadership to send it down for a vote. It seems this tactic by the owners has not worked on that prong though. As neutral as I want to be, I want to lean towards the owners because they at least seem to be trying to work some middle ground, where players have not been willing to budge one bit. They may be right in that decision, I am not privy to all the info, but I want baseball, and the players seemed to have drawn a line in the sand and they will not cross it. Full prorated pay and at minimum half a season. They want more than half a season for more money, but from what was leaked seems like 82 games at full prorated would maybe get it done on player side. So this offer, if it is an offer, will not get it done unless players willing to budge. The question is, will the players be willing to take nothing on pure principle? The owners claim to be willing to do 50 games at full prorated. Players say not worth it. So if MLB says 50 at full prorated, will players say no? Will they say no money to prove our point is better than some money? If I was a player making league minimum counting on my paychecks to pay mortgage on support family, it would be hard to fully swallow no money. To make matters worse, will this be a single season issue? Most likely we will have to deal with limited fans in seat next year and owners will have similar issues. Will players be willing to take 2 full seasons of no pay because of this? Would baseball ever survive something like that? If there is no season this year, it may harm future revenue because some fans will not care about the "who is right" thing. Players claim they want to play more games, to tell the fans we want to give you more games. This is an attempt to look good to the fans. However, now that the MLB is saying more games at the 75% prorate, will the players say no? If the players say no, then what they are really saying is games do not matter, money does. Really, from what I have read, the 76 games at 75% is estimated to be about same loss to owners and pay to players at 50 games at full prorate. Math could be a little fuzzy there. However, if it is about games being played and not money then agree players. However, just as in most things in life, it is all about the money. I expect the players to say no to this and say full prorate. Will MLB then force 50 games? If so will players opt out sighting now safety concerns? Which may be legitimate, but could also be concerns of lowering FA value in short sample size should they have a poor season. How many players will opt out? Will minor league players get called up while the players that opt out do not get paid? Will those players that opt out get service time? My personal thought is that this offer is final offer by owners and if players say no, then owners will either say no season or 50 games max at full prorate and move forward with that.

It would greatly depend on how it is structured. How would they be able to have 6 feet between me and others I do not know? For the people that have season tickets, who gets to actually attend, do they have it go first come first serve and if someone claims theirs, then the seats within 6 feet are blocked off an cannot go? Would get to use their ticket for different seats and get the refund for the price difference? Will the employees be regularly tested? I would not buy food or beverages that is for sure. If parents cannot control their child from staying 6 feet from me will I be able to get them removed, or have option to upgrade my seats? Most likely I would wait for all the kinks to get worked out.

Very interesting to look at. I looked up the draft and the biggest miss, with some players still in minors being out of HS, is Walker Buehler, the second pitcher drafted from Vanderbilt. The first one being Carson Fulmer going 2 picks after Jay. Just shows how much of a crap shoot projecting players can be. There were 9 pitchers taken before Buehler, several from HS so jury still out on them, but sure most teams wish they would have taken Buehler instead of who they did.

Why must the owners make it happen? Why can the players not help make it happen? I am not taking sides of either, both have their arguments, and neither are willing to budge. Read a good article yesterday breaking down this season and the money that is at stake. About 350 million is what the two sides are fighting over. However, this is also about the past and what the next season may look like or the next CBA. It is simple to ask the owners to just say okay players to get baseball going we will pony up the 350 million. However, what happens next year if still no fans can go to games, or at a very limited amount. The players will demand full pay, just as they are this year. Then owners will again say they are losing a ton of money. The CBA comes the next year, which was already looking at strike or lockout. So both sides are thinking if we cave now, it will hurt us in the future CBA. Unlike every other league where both sides have incentive to make as much money as possible because they share in all revenue, so working together to make it happen is important. With MLB, the two sides still want to make as much money as possible, but then they get to fight over how the pie is cut. It is not spelled out how that happens. Owners say we make X, but do not release the books. Players call them liars and say even if the "team" pulls in X, you get other revenue for owning the team, or local sports stations, that is not part of what you claim to pull in. Not sure the truth of either because very little transparency. The players want their fair share, and who can blame them, they claim they are not getting it. Owners are saying they cannot operate with such loses. Over a short season it sounds like they could, but as stated above, they are worried about next season as well. They are concerned that if they agree to play games with no fans at a full prorate this year then next year they could be out even more. Maybe they can afford it and for the fans should afford it, but will the players allow the owners to recoup those losses? Most likely no, they will not care that the owners lost money for two years. I agree we need to start baseball, and I do not care which side caves. They are talking about the type of money most of us will never see in a given year. However, the divide between the two sides was so big before this. Neither side is willing to give, and now they are playing chicken and using the media, or social media to try and convince the public they are in the right. Where neither side seems to understand is, for the most part, the public does not care.

Interesting the top position players are not considered to be at top defensive positions. No clear SS or CF. I read a good article on Torkelson pointing out how 1B is almost never drafted early in first round. However, the old saying if they can hit you will find a spot for them. I wonder how much these boards would have changed had there been full college and high school seasons.

The 6th overall pick not even on a team 5 years after the pick. Just sad. I have big hopes for Kirilloff and Lewis. Larnich I think will have a good career but I am bigger on Kirilloff, if I had to pick between the two. Cavaco I do not mind the draft the athlete and hope he can make moves. I am sure he will take more time to develop, but Twins are not in a position they need to rush.

The culling of the minor leagues is about the teams cutting costs. There are so many independent college minor leagues out there that owners make enough to keep operating. Here was the Northwoods league that has grown over the last 15 years. In terms of the cutting the players, I do not know how accurate the claim that many would have been cut after spring training anyways. Not that it makes it any better. I wrote in another minors post that many of these players are not doing it for the money. However, to keep them on only to cut them in this situation, not knowing was it skill or payroll they were cut for. No way of getting signed by other teams at this point. Too late for any independent teams to jump onto, if they decide to try and have a season. I know many leagues are trying, but need the governments to allow it.

Interesting that it is the lowest of the top 30. One would think the 30th should be the lowest, but it shows what kind of a crap shoot it is. I do not have high hopes, but you never know.

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.

The number of games is not an issue. The pay per game will be. The main argument by owners is they will lose a large amount of money if they have games at full prorated play and no fans. The players say full pay for play. From everything I have read, I do not expect any season this year. The sides are too far apart and the owners two plans they have mentioned the response has been hell no by players. The longer they wait to come up with a plan the less likely anything will happen. The fact that other sports have no real issues figuring out how they would be acting moving forward. They are all revenue sharing salary caps so they both have vested interest in having games. For MLB having full open market leads to both sides trying to get over on the other. We as fans talk all the times about over value or under value contracts. GM's try to get the under value contract and owners rejoice but overvalue contracts lead to GM's losing jobs. There will be no season. There had been angst over the last couple years leading to labor stop coming up, this just sped up the clock. I do not understand why each side is trying to get the public support, because really the public does not care who gets more money, we want baseball. In all sports all we want to is it to be affordable and that we can see it. We do not care if the owners get all the money, or the players. We just want to be entertained. We are talking about large amounts of many for all invovled. This is not a strike of workers trying to make a living wage for their family and public can boycott where the labor can get different jobs. Players have one way to get paid, work for the MLB or go over seas to lessor paying leagues. If you want to play in America and get paid well, you have to work with MLB. If owners want to make money they have to work the players. Both are stubborn, and only the fans are hurt.

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.