Trov

I have long advocated that a floor and cap would fix issues, as they get based on actual revenue and there is a true sharing. The info of the revenues get shared with players to set the numbers. Many of the issues is lack of transparency. My current union contract talks have that same issue. Management claims they cannot meet the demands because of lack of money, but will not show the books as to why that is the case. This leads to mistrust. I agree with the fact that if the players cared about all the players they would care more about a floor. If you expand the tax level all that will happen is the top few players will get a little more money. The teams that spend no where close to that number will not suddenly start spending more. Also, most teams could sign a guy to 20 mil or more, or raise what they are paying their players a little more and not pass the level. The tax level is not what is keeping teams from signing a vet for a few more million a season. The problem is the players have always said no cap ever, and will never budge on that. They do not want to limit what they can get paid, but they stupidly agreed to the tax level. Which is basically a soft cap that most teams will not pass, they do not want to throw away dead money. Really what should help all players is that money from the tax and the revenue that is shared with smaller market teams needs to be spent on players, that is the biggest issue. The smaller market teams take the shared money, but then still claim poverty.

I would hope that would not count, at least it will not in my mind.

There has always been a few pitchers that work quickly, one that always comes to mind for me is Mark Buehrle. He would get the ball, the sign and throw in just a few seconds. He was a good pitcher overall. Even when guys were on base he took little time between pitches and his games were very short. Personally, I am all for the pitch clock because I feel it has got crazy out of hand with how long some guys take. It will also lead to a new cat and mouse game when runners are on. As it will also have limited step offs and throw over. If it is like the minor league rule, you could only have 2 throws over or step offs, unless the runner took off before the pitch was thrown. I think there was a gray area of what was considered running going, meaning the runner could not just walk way off the base after 2 throws over. It will lead to more running game maybe but more trying to catch a guy too with pitch outs after 2 throws over. I do think the game needs to speed up, as it has dragged on. I always enjoy being able to do other things and not miss much going on, but at the same time I do not like 3.5 to 4 hour games every night. I think it will take time for the pitchers to adjust to it, but once they do there will not be much of an issue, and we will just accept it as part of the game now. I get that baseball has never had a clock of any kind, and that is part of the great part of the game, but at some point you need to not just let the game drag on forever. The game will continue to lose younger fans who want action. If this will make action happen I am all for it.

I fully agree he is not likely to be a starter, but can fill a decent ben roll. First, I remember when 93 was considered fast, not a determent to a pitcher as too slow. My how times have changed, and I am not that old. Radke averaged 89 on his fastball and got the job done just fine. Second, the speed is not super important if the breaking pitch is that good you throw it more often and just use the fastball to change up things sometimes. As long as you can spot corners.

MLB teams have exploited international kids for years. Yes, some kids get huge sums of money, but most of the time that money is taken by corrupt people if the kid does not get out of the country. These kids are brought to baseball academies owned by teams where the kids are taught basic English and baseball. They do not learn anything of real educational value. For the lucky few that emerge and get signed even for just 6 figure deals do hit the jackpot, but most of the kids never get signed or sign for only 5 figures move to US and get used in the minor leagues because it is either do that, or manual labor in their home country because they passed up all possible education because they had athletic promise. Is it a better life than if they went to school, I cannot answer that. However, MLB has tried to put the spin on their academies as some great thing they are doing for the country, but the money they spend there does not get spread around it stays with very few people. Sure, without them some of these kids would never get found and never make it to MLB earning millions to help give back to their country if they want to. However, there is a very dark side of these as well. I hope with the international draft there will be less of this, but most likely not.

First, both sides are to blame, as both did not reach an agreement. The players could have chose the owners offer, and the owners could have chose the players offer, but neither did. To say it is all the owners fault, in my mind, is just not accurate. I will agree the owners are not opening their books to prove what they actually make. That is a huge issue. Do not claim you barely make money, but refuse to actually prove it. That being said, the owners should not be expected to lose money owning a team, just because they could afford to. Fans need to remember that there are 30 teams and they have different interest too. Even the players have different interests. There are large market owners, that would love to not have the luxary tax or have it higher like the players want. However, there are small market owners that despite winning with little payroll still never get many fans in seats. Then there are the teams in the middle. Each has what they would like to see. Personally, I would like to see as much parity in the sport as you can get, and I would love to see top players staying with their teams, no matter where they come from. I hated the early 2000's where most of the top guys went to either Yankees or Red Sox, with a few going to other teams. Now, I cannot see the owners books, but I believe that some of the smaller market teams cannot sign some of the free agents and be a profitable business, without getting revenue sharing. I could be wrong, and most likely they could spend more. The players are claiming they only care about making the game more competitive, but their proposals, outside of a draft lottery, which in baseball is a really who cares because rarely does the number 1 pick end up being the best player in the draft anyways, just does not make sense for competitive balance. The players want to raise the tax level and lower the penalty for breaking it. Well, very few teams any given year are within 20 mil of the number, meaning it is not what is stopping a team from signing some, but other factors. What those factors are, I cannot say. Lifting the tax number and lowering the penalty will just put the top few market teams back into looking to sign each top star and being able to outbid the lower tier teams. The players are concerned about service time manipulation, which they should be, but decreasing years to FA, combined with higher tax line, will just make teams hold guys in minors even longer. Teams tank or not be competitive for a couple of reasons. One, they lack the current talent in their system to compete against other teams, so they keep their top prospects down to have longer team control when they do have enough talent to compete, and they do not want to waste money and years of service on losing seasons. Two, more revenue sharing, international signing money, and more draft picks, getting the comp balance picks that they can use or trade. Both sides are to blame for this, I would argue the owners more so, and I do not blame the players for their stance. That being said, the players could accept what is offered, not saying they should. Regardless of how this shakes out, I just hope it does not go back to the top market teams signing every major FA again, with a splash here or there from other teams. What the players should really demand is not that the tax line goes up, but that the revenue sharing from it, has to be spent on players. Meaning every dollar that goes to other teams from revenue sharing must go to signing players. Not sure owners would go for it, but it gets you closer to what players want, better contracts across the board, not just bigger for the top few. It would help keep teams more competitive.

I expected this. I know some where hoping after Monday that something would happen, but I had little hope. I expect this to min drag into May. The owners are not loosing much, if anything by losing April games. The owners are hoping the players will cave when they lose those game checks. The owners are trying to bully the players into taking what is offered. I saw this coming all along. The owners truly hold all the power. Most of them make their money from other businesses and owning MLB team is just for fun, and to make some more money, but not only way they get money. Most of the players this is their only way of making money. Some will have some extra incomes but most will only be making it from game checks. I have blamed both sides for this mostly. It really goes back years. I have found the players ask to not be good for baseball overall, but I also find the owners are greedy and hiding what they really make to back up their claim that they make very little. I wish the two sides would have agreed to a revenue share in 2020 to build some level of trust and make the owners open the books to the players. However, the players have always said no cap, which now has backfired against them, because without a cap there is no floor. The players claim owners have more they can spend, but without a floor there is no reason they have to. The players could have fixed this issue years ago by agreeing to a cap and floor. However, the owners now are being rich bullies that are trying to force an agreement on the players. The owners have lied to the fans and the players all along, as their actions have shown. Personally, at this point I would support a full missed season. Let the owner decide if losing all money from MLB is worth it. The players need to stand strong and force the owners to see what it is like. I feel for all the day to day employees though that will be out jobs because of all of this.

What this whole thing shows is that both sides could have done this weeks ago if they really wanted to. They both played the game of chicken and finally say okay lets be real and see if we can work out a deal that we had months to do but work it out in a few hours. Really just annoying, but I know how it all works, just annoying.

Today will determine if we have a long lockout. The MLB deadline that the players do not agree to will cause even more division for a return to play. Remember 2020, when we had a huge divide of how to pay in a return to play? They never reached an agreement really and the pro rated pay was just done. I can see it now, the owners will say we will not pay you for games we cancelled, and the players will say you cancelled them you locked us out. The owners would say, well you would have struck, and the players will say you never know. The players will demand some level of back pay for missed games to return, the owners will not want to agree to it. I know they need a deadline, but this will just add another issue that the two sides will be far apart on.

I know we did not have anything to do with it, but why did Martin change his swing last year? Did he do it after the lack of power, or did Toronto ask him to do it going into the year? I hate when a guy who may not be ideal swing, but has results, is asked to change it up. They are asking a guy who has done the same thing thousands of times making muscle memory to just change it up expecting better results. I am of the approach is if the swing got you to the level you are, until it no longer is working do not change it up. Sometimes a odd swing, or motion, or whatever is what works for them. Would you want everyone to do it, most likely not. We did this with Buck for so many years. We told him his way will not work, so we kept messing with him, which was not working and causing him to want to go back to what got him drafted, but then struggled there. To my understanding he basically has gone back to his old ways and doing just fine with it. Just because something is not textbook, does not mean it does not work.

I would not endorse a trade for an "ace" at this point. We have a lot of arms that need to see what they got. Many people claim we will not do well this season because we have no proven pitchers, but until they get a chance to prove themselves we will never know. Also, I see little point to bring in a guy we will most likely just look to send out again either next off-season or at trade deadline this or next year. Unless you believe Duran will not be MLB level guy then I would be open to trade, but if team believes he will be an MLB guy, I keep what we got right now.

I find it interesting you have Wallner in top 20, but not Sabato. I am not huge on Sabato, but both are bat first, or bat only guys. Sabato is younger, put up better numbers at same level then Wallner did, in a much smaller sample size, but the point is I think it is odd a guy like Wallner is ranked so much higher than Sabato. It will be intersting to see how Sabato does starting in CR and not in FM.

I new the deadline thing was coming, and I knew the players were going to push back on the cancelled games. To me, if the deadline passes, we will see many games missed because the players will continue to push to get as many games in, and owners will continue to use the loss of games as leverage to try and break the players to settle. Each passing day will cause more anger and will push the sides further apart, unless the public statements are just smoke.

I am a huge fan of Martin. I think if he cannot field SS then he can shift to LF and be a good defender there. His OBP skills are so elite. I think the league has become way to power heavy with players. Like if a player does not slot to be a 20 plus HR guy they are not going to be a good hitter or something. Maybe his power will improve, or maybe it will not, but if he can still get on base at the level he does I will take him at the top of the lineup setting the table for big bats.

He will be a huge risk if his medicals do not get shared. I guess one question the Twins would need to answer is what does the talent in this draft look like? If the talent is deep and you think 8th still has value, then you find the best out there. But, if you think next year is deeper draft where 9th is a good value, then maybe you take a flier on Rocker, if you do not like the medicals then you do like Mets did and not sign him, getting the pick at the next draft, but if you think he has value and the medicals are overblown then you may have hit a possible number 1 pick. Also, as a senior age guy, you can fast track him if healthy. All pitcher come with risk no matter history of injury or not. I am not surprised Rocker did not return to college, I would not either as he has little to prove other than health, but he can do that in a pro league somewhere now. If nothing else sign a year over in Japan or Korea to show health. Not sure how posting works if a U.S. born player signs as a FA over there though, so maybe that is bad idea.

If they can get Story for 4 years less than 25 a year, I would be good with that, and I am not a big fan of Story, but 4 years is something they can live with. However, I have been hearing he is wanting longer years than 4. So only way we get him here for 4 years is if no other team will willing to go more than 4. The top 3 length contracts so far are middle infield guys. 10 years for Seagar, who is 1.5 years younger. 7 for Siemien who is 2 years older. 6 for Baez who is about same age. Correa is rumored to be around the 10 year length, 1.5 years younger. Maybe no one will give Story a 6 year plus deal, but I bet one team will offer him 6 years, and that I would not be willing to do.

I know the writer is anti owners and pro players in the lockout, but if you are writing what should be an informative article it should be accurate. "On the competitive balance tax front, the owners moved less than $4 million in any given season. This is a highly contentious issue for the players because owners use the luxury tax as a soft salary cap. Very few teams spend over it and even more spend right up next to it. The luxury tax has not kept up with the revenue increase, and players continue to see less return on their production to the owners bottom line." That quote from the article is just not accurate. It implies that many teams are right near the tax line and the players have a huge gripe to have it expanded a ton because many teams are using it to claim they cannot spend more money on players. That is just plain wrong. If you look at the last 5 years, can even skip 2020 as it was an odd season. Yes, on any given year only 1 or 2 team will pass the number. However, very few teams get even close to it. In 2017, no team passed the number, and only 5 teams were even within 20 mil of the number, 2 was 19 mil. It starts to really drop off from there. At 20 mil space, each team, had they wanted to could have signed 1 pretty expensive FA without hitting the "soft cap" 2018, 2 teams pasted it, the Red Sox blew it out of the water. 3 where within 20 mil, So again, most teams could have spent big and not pass the line. 2019, 3 teams were over, then 1 other team was within 20 mil. 2021, 1 team was over, 3 within 20 mil. If you look, it is not always the same top few teams over that time in the top. Meaning, these teams can spend more if they wanted to, but choose not to, and it is not the "soft cap" stopping them on any given year. I get the players think that if you increase the number it will entice some teams to get into the bidding on some players, but I do not see how it will increase the overall spending. I know the thought is, well one big spender was over, or has a lot of big contracts on books and will not look to get in the bidding on a player, so lets raise the tax level so they will get in the bidding. However, lets say that team wins the bidding, that does not mean the other teams will say, well we were willing to spend 30 mil a year on Correa, since we missed out, lets spend 30 mil on Story, because we budgeted for 30 mil. That is similar to how the teams acted years ago, was top FA would get record deal, then next level guy would get a slightly worse deal. However, teams started looking at the player output compared across the board, not just to FA. They started looking beyond that off-season, which led to weak FA classes getting much worse offers than they expected. My issue is the belief that if you raise the tax level, more teams will spend more because of it. Most teams already could spend much more, and rarely within 20 mil of the line. The padres in 2017 had the lowest payroll. Even in 2019, they were 7th lowest. Then they decided to spend money and raise payroll 80 mil 2 years later. That increase in spending was all about their willingness to spend it. Now you can point out to the fact that they must have had the ability to do it, but chose not too, and that is the players issue. However, by being a full free open market, like the players wanted, there is no requirement the owners spend. But, it again points out the tax line was not keeping the Padres from spending. In a 5 year span they raised payroll 145 mil. Clearly there is an issue of having teams spend when they can, but how you fix that issue is create a floor, which I know the players want, but to be fair for low market teams, there needs to be a cap then to actually have a chance at some talent. Else you will end up with top market teams signing all the top FA outbidding the smaller market teams most of the time, then making them spend more on lower level talent. Yes, the players get what they want, but the fans still see all the top FA going to large market teams. Maybe, a small market team will get lucky and get a guy because they will spend, but the player will be surrounded then by low price talent and have less of a chance of winning.

To me, the only way that Robertson or Beckham get the nod over Gordon is if Gordon has no future with the team, and they should just release him to find a team that would see a possible future.

I recall Gordon was a question at SS when past FO took him. There was questions about his ability to stick there long term and 2nd base was expected at some point. I would not say our current missed on him, he just never grew into SS role as was hoped. Also, if you look at his progress curve for each level, he has always taken awhile to adjust. I think the current FO just never liked him all that much and felt other guys had higher upside over him. For Javier he was one that was expected to stay at SS but was also super young. and for whatever reason never grew like expected. It happens to every team. In terms of Lewis, is it the organization, or is it the lost time and injury? I mean we have talked about him moving off of SS but is that because he lacks the ability to play there, or someone else may be better? Look at Manny Machado, and Marcus Semien, they were both SS coming up, Machado got moved off of SS to 3rd base because Baltimore had good defender in JJ Hardy. Machado could defend SS, but was average to below average. Semien was average to below average defender at SS but he played there for years at Oakland, then he got moved to 2b for Toronto. I have said in many posts, very few guys are elite or even above average at both offense and defense at SS. The ones that are are superstar future HOF normally. So if Lewis can be average defender but above average on offense, we will take it. Remember when Polonco was hitting above average at SS and we all were talking about he was future starter for years to come at SS. Then his offense dropped off and all of a sudden we started talking about his poor defense at SS more and more and how he needs to play some where else. If Lewis comes up and hits above average, unless he is super terrible on defense, not many fans will complain. I mean teams put up with Manny Rameriez in the field for years for some reason.

I am not optimistic at all that losing spring games will push the sides to a deal. Neither side has made much movement, and maybe it is the game of chicken hoping the other side blinks first. However, I do not think spring training games will get it done. Hopefully I am wrong, but they are still so far apart. I was expecting long stoppage all along because of how bad the two sides were attacking the other in media during 2020 season. The players have had issues for many seasons and learned their agreement did not work out well for them, but it was mainly because the owners changed the way they did business. The players felt like the rug was pulled out from under them, which makes them worry about any deal proposed that the owners will just find the loop holes like they have in the past, or plan to have the loop holes. I am on neither side, because they are fighting over the fans money and how it gets split up between them. NBA understands high tides lift all ships, but MLB and players do not care about the fans. They both are claiming they want a good game for fans going forward, but it is all about who gets what money. Both sides want to beat the other in the deal, and to do that they need to break the other side. Instead of working together to get the best product for the fans, they are fighting over how the money gets split, instead of just looking to build a bigger pot. The longer the fight goes, the less amount of money each will get to fight over. I hope they both see that and really get down to something workable for the two sides, that does not just allow big market teams to load up on all talent like the players seem to want. How does faster FA and higher tax level help small and mid-market teams make more competitive league? That makes little sense to me.

Two points. One, the NBA does have a developmental league, the G-League. Now, they do not have as many players in it, or as many coaches, there still is one. Two, it is the leagues choice to have a developmental league with as many teams as they do. The MLB players should not have to take less of a revenue share because the owners decide to hire more employees in other areas. The owners decide how much they pay the managers, scouts, and other employees. After the revenue is split, they have their budget, the half that goes to them. Then they should decide how it gets split up. The players should not have to agree to a lessor share because there may be more employees on the other side. If we use the NBA as an example. They get like a 50/50 split or close to it. There is 15 max players per team. So the 50 that goes to players are split up by max between about 450 players. Where in the MLB there is 40 man rosters, so 1,200 players split the revenue. Lets say each league makes same amount of money. Then if both had a 50/50 split the MLB players are splitting the same over many more players. Your argument that the owners should get a greater split than in NBA because they have more employees to pay, can be argued the same way for the players, because they have more players to spread it out over. Even if you argue that only 26 guys are on the active roster at any given time, you still are splitting it up over a much larger amount of players.

Many teams draft players that play SS for HS, knowing they most likely will not stay there. Sano was signed as a SS, knowing full well he would not stay there. Cuddy was drafted as a SS, ended up being a good RF. It happens all the time. It is not like when a player gets drafted as a hitter and shifts to pitcher, or other way round. I also feel some people are a little unrealistic at SS. Very few SS are elite hitters and fielders. The ones that are tend to be on way to HOF. Some people, even think a SS is better defender than they are because of the offense, or they make some good looking plays but overall not that good at defending. Derek Jeter for much of his career past age 30 was poor on defense, but he was the captain and for the Yankees so they just kept plugging him there, despite being well below average defender at that time. Even looking at todays SS not may are elite at both. Last year the top defending SS were, Nicky Lopez, Fansico Lindor, Nick Ahmed, Simmons, Brandon Crawford, Correa. Among the worst defense, meaning they were at least below average, Story, Bichette, Seager. When you look at top offense guys, Brandon Crawford was one of best offense, Correa was up there as well. Lindor was okay, but not elite last year. The rest of the top defenders were generally either average offense wise, or below average, just like the top offense guys were either average or below average on defense. Really, if you can have a SS that can be above average at one, and average at the other you are doing just fine. Too often we look at the offense and forget about the defense. Mainly, as long as the player is not making terrible errors we do not think about the balls they did not get to, that top defenders would. If we do not see an error, we do not think it was a bad play most of the time. However, we can always see if the guy is terrible on offense.

Wow, I forgot about him. I know when he was drafted many were not that high on him and was talked about as a stretch.

As to the draft pick compensation, I think that is a huge thing. I did not read about that yet but here. I am having hard time finding much on that as well. If accurate that is huge win for players and something they have wanted for a long time. I do not know how I feel yet on it. One, I would wonder if teams will get some comp pick between rounds for losing a QO player, or just no picks at all. If that is the case, then the QO will just be dropped all together, because no team would give one if they get nothing for it. The QO has been what has driven many of the players issues over the last few FA rounds. When it first started, teams really did not care much about losing that pick, and players loved the QO because it was the floor for talks to them. It eventually shifted to teams less willing to sign a player who had the QO tag, unless they were one of the top few players. The reason was many of the guys were only going to give them 3 good years on average, but the pick would have good value for much longer than 3 years. So teams started to see how big losing a 1st round was, and stopped offering contracts to mid-level guys that turned down QO and teams would even wait until after draft to sign players some years. The players were getting contracts for even less than the QO some times. This led to some players finally accepting the offer if their expected per year value was near the QO number. Players should love the dropping of a team losing a pick. I think if teams get a pick for losing a QO free agent, similar to the old class A and B free agents, that would be helpful for the smaller market teams. The reason for the QO compensation was to help out smaller market teams that were losing a free agent. Many forget we got Jose Berrios in a comp round pick from letting Cuddy walk, if there was no comp pick for letting Cuddy go, we would never have drafted Berrios. I do agree, that if the MLB really wants to pull the whole, teams do not make much money, then actually release your numbers. The Braves are the only publicly traded team, so their financials are available. Here is link to article discussing them this last season https://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/braves-latest-financial-results-are-in-third-quarter-revenue-hits-234m/XZUMUNPZQBFSLFNTMF3PEBBHUE/ It is not clear how much profit they made across the year, but they set record revenue last year. If MLB really wants to cry they are not making money, let the world see how much they really are pulling in. We can look at Braves, but they are only 1 team.

I do not remember that trade rumor at the time. If it was an offer, Smith really missed out on that one. I do remember when we made the Mets trade people were upset a different OF was not included over Gomez, that guy never did anything at MLB level so at least that was right call. Overall all the rumors I remember none would have ended up being amazing, unless the Dodger one you say was actually an offer.