Trov

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.

I am not surprised the FA signings have failed, they were never going to be great. Bell is streaky and when he can get hot he can be great. Similar to Clemons they can get hot and carry a team, but their slumps can be just as bad the opposite way. The starting pitching has been amazing, outside of SWR, even the call ups. The pen has been up and down, as most pens are. We have got some surprises on offense by Lee, Larnach, and Martin, but the bad way for Wallner and Lewis. What I am happy about is that the FO is willing to make moves, that old FO may not have. Specifically, the DFA of Topa, demotion of Wallner and Lewis. I would expect if Bell does not step up and get hot soon, he will be next on the DFA.

There is a lot more to it than just that. Service time, options, 40 man roster rules, waivers, DFA rules all affect how you manage not only the 40 man roster, but the 26 man roster. Also, development/playing time, and rolls of active players play a part as well. For example, Culpepper is not on the 40 man roster. To add him to it you need to remove someone or put them on the 60 day IL. If you remove them from 40 man roster, then they get put on waivers for any team to claim them. If it is not their first time, they can opt to be a FA as well. This means you lose them. In some cases, that may not be a big deal, but lets say Twins want to call up Culpepper, and DFA Lewis to make room on 40 man roster for him. Odds are Lewis would get taken on a waiver claim. Maybe losing Lewis on a waiver claim would not be a big deal. However, it could backfire. Also, what if Culpepper does terrible? What if he gets hurt? Then we need to reach deeper into the system with a possible lessor prospect. 40 man roster moves should not be done on a whim. They have long lasting affects.

When you look at the whole draft there has been no real great players. Even some of the all-stars taken later in draft are only all-stars by mostly defaults by nature of needing one. This was just a bad draft it looks like. No real long term all-star or possible HOF type guys.

Mendez appears to be possibly be one of those hitters that with the small adjustments can make big strides. He has been known to have a good eye at plate, with solid contact and exit velo's but over his career has been a ground ball hitter so affecting his power numbers. Does not matter if you hit the ball 110 off the bat, if it is on the ground you normally are at best getting singles, if not down the lines generally. This year though it would seem he must be getting more launch angel as his slugging is up over his career average. Being he is on the 40 man he could be a call up with injury to one of our OF or if they decide to cut Bell Mendez could fill DH roll for this season if his hot bat continues.

With current injury to Buck not playing CF, Roden still out in minors, E-Rod, Jenkins both out, we have very limited options for defense at CF. Mendez cannot play it. Martin has the speed but not best at it either. That really just right now leaves outman until Buck can play it regular again, which that may not happen this year. We remember recently when he only DH all year basically. Also, why would you make a prospect the 4th or 5th outfielder? You want to give prospects at bats, not ride the bench with a few at-bats a week. If you do not plan on playing a prospect at MLB level, keep them in minors so they can get regular playing time.

The only reason I have hope is all his injuries are different and not soft tissue. However, similar to Buck in his early years is he kept getting hurt in different ways, not just one way. Like with Buck people kept saying it is the way he plays defense, except so many injuries was running bases, even just to first. I hope that E-Rod can stop getting hurt though for sure. Jenkins is in similar situation he keeps getting soft tissue injuries early in season. Then plays a decent amount. His most recent was just making a catch up against the wall and hurt shoulder.

It does not matter where he is playing on defense, he needs to get back to the hitter we all thought he would be after his early seasons. Without that he is unplayable at any position.