Trov

You can blame the owners for waiting the 43 days to send proposal as an issues, however, I blame both sides for how we got here, and how it will go. Unlike in NBA or NFL where owners and players understand that when they work together to make a better product it will bring more money into the league and more money to share. Those leagues know if you make a larger pie each will get more pie no matter how you cut. MLB and players do not care how big the pie is, they want to larger slice and do not care that their slice is smaller because they made the pie smaller due to their own issues. The players have proposed things, that they claim is for helping make the overall product better, but it really is just to put more money into top players pockets, and allowing the top market teams to load up on more talent. The owners continue to want to pay the least amount they can. If the players and owners really care about having competitive games, balance of teams, and keeping players in home grown teams to help build fans support of players, they would work on a hybrid agreement between NBA and NFL. The problem is, the players will never agree to a cap, but they are demanding a floor. How can you expect there to be a floor without a cap. In other leagues they have them, and they are based on league revenue, where the players will get a percent of the money teams make. If I was an owner of say Tampa Bay, I would be 100 percent against a floor, without a cap. This is because the high market teams could outbid for the top talents as they do already, forcing the lower teams to pay more for lessor talent, because you have to spend it. This is does not help balance. Also, what if the floor is above what a small market team makes because the players want to get rid of the revenue sharing that goes on as well. I have long said this will be a long stoppage that will go into the season. This is because both sides want to win against the other, and not come up with something that is best for both. Fans want to see the best talent at the MLB level, and want to see their teams compete late into seasons. This is best done when talent is spread across teams, not all in one team. This is also best done when there is little incentive of teams to keep talent in the minors until they have built up enough to make a push. Tanking is not an issue in baseball, as the number 1 picks are never for sure MLB players. However, teams will not try to win and keep top players in minors, not using up years of control, if they know they have little chance of making playoffs. The problem is neither side can see how bad this will be for both until it is too late.

It is hard to compare 2 guys from 2 different eras and one that played a much shorter career and played very different positions. If you look at just offense Carew was better overall. However, Puckett played CF. The metrics may not like him all that much, gold gloves back then went so often to high offense guys that would make a high light play now and again without any major errors. However, he still played it at least to a point that people felt was above average defender. Carew played two of the lower defense positions. 1b was the place you stuck a guy because you wanted his offense but defense was lacking so just asking him to mostly catch it. That to me is where Puckett starts to catch back up. Where I decide Puckett would get the edge just barely is what he did in the playoffs. Even taking away his Game 6 stuff, he was awlays willing to take the big moment and do what he could to carry the team. He did not buckle under the pressure of post season. Not saying Carew did, but his numbers were much worse. You could not go wrong with either on a team in their prime, if I had to pick one though, Puckett would get the nod just barely for me.

His overall offense was not the problem. It is 1, his drop in defense, which was a main reason we targeted him because he was going to be good defense at 3rd. Now, he is below average at 3rd and most likely will be playing a lot of time at DH. His slugging is lower than expected in part because he cannot run. I know he is choosing to not run to stay on the field because his calfs could act up anytime he runs faster than mock turtle. You can live with no speed if he starts hitting more HR, not that 26 is terrible, but he hits at top of line up and will fully clog the bases. I will never want him on base in front of Buxton because that will take away Buxton's speed if Donaldson is on base. I would like to see Josh hitting after Buxton though. I think people were just down on Donaldson because he was a big contract, but not thinking about he is pretty much what we were hoping for on offense, just taking a step back on defense is a big issue and his complete lack of running to keep him healthy.

Is there a consensus that playing SS is what caused Polonco's injury issues and that playing 2nd base will make it that much less likely he will have them? I am not saying we need to move Polonco back, but when healthy his bat plays well anywhere, and despite being below average defense, his bat is above average to level it out. Now, if there is a strong belief by the medical staff that SS is what led to the ankle issues then I would agree to keep him off of SS.

To go along with the fact Greene could have been SS as mentioned, he also pitched in LA for high school. Scouts will always look at areas kids play as well. Petty pitched out east where the best player in the world once played but dropped late in the first round as well, because scouts worry about the big fish little pond thing. This would be even more of an issue with a guy like petty who throws so hard. Very few people can hit that speed, so put him in an area where talent is considered lower, there is concern he is just looking good against less talent.

The pitchers scare me the most that neither had surgery. I see all the time players trying to rehab for several months, only to need the TJ surgery and be out another year. I am no doctor, and I am sure the research is there to support the rehab rout, but it just does not seem to work out all that often.

There is a lot of things that go into those rankings. Also, they mean nothing as to how the player will actually be when they arrive. One of the main reason for the drop is not that he is not expected to still be good at the MLB level, but that he is now older and younger guys have come in to move ahead of him. Anyone ahead of him does not mean they will now be better than him at the top level. I am not concerned about his drop in rankings, I am only concerned if he can stay healthy and get to the MLB level and produce.

Also when a team wants to induct people each year for the promotional weekend, eventually, you get very slim pickings. I am not saying it needs to be as hard to get in as baseball HOF, but there is not a need to induct at least 1 each year.

For the right price I would look to bring him back for a 2 year extension, maybe third with team option. However, I would not price him out as a "closer" but as a high leverage lefty. I do not see him as a closer in the future. Many supporters of him say he had "bad luck" but if it happens over and over is it bad luck? Having a couple blown saves on a weak contact hits you can say is bad luck, but he has had several over the last couple years. Also, he has not been great on back to back games, something you need from a closer. He can be a late inning lefty guy that can get some righties out, but I think his days as the "closer" is over and you should not pay him like a closer.

Other than control, specifically on slider, and developing his change up, he does not seem to have much to work on. That slider moves like crazy. I hope that if he can have good control, he should only be in minors for a couple of years to build up arm strength for building up innings. However, really it is keeping those legs strong to keep that velo up. When you can have that velo if you can spot and get that kind of movement on slider he can be really nasty. I see no real point to have someone "develop" in minors if have the stuff to get MLB hitters out.

The only way you sign him is to just wrap up the arbitration years, but do not buy out any FA years. I would not even buy out the arbitration years though. He is on the wrong side of 30 and will drop off production really fast, like most players but catchers generally drop off faster.

I object to Gardenhire, other than his long time in the organization I have long not liked Gardenhire when he managed. I cannot deny the team did overall well while he was manager, but he was about as plug and play manager there was. He did have a short time where he thought outside the box when he had Jones be lead-off but other than that he hated trying new things that could have helped team actually win the playoffs. I always felt he was very overrated as a manager. I would totally watch the induction if Joe West could show up just to eject him though. I do not think a single series that Joe West did with Gardy did Gardy not get ejected at least one of the games.

As I say with all trades if price is right I am in. I would never invest much in a pen pitcher though. You never know how they will be from year to year. Only the top top guys have long sustained great pitching out of the pen.

No player is off-limits for the right price. If there is a great deal to be had then pull the trigger, but do not just move him for a meh player because you believe you have depth. I know fans wish he had more power, but his ability to put ball in play all over the field and work counts does not come around often. He is not the same type of hitter, but his path reminds me so much of Jose Altuve. Both were overlooked because of stature and lack of power. Altuve had very little pop early in his career but just kept on getting hits and made his way into lineup. He eventually learned how to hit with some power and got some MVP votes. First double digit HR season was his age 25 season with 15. Will Arraez develop power? I do not know, but he is entering his age 25 season now. His swing does not suggest he will ever be a 20 plus HR guy, but if he can learn some power to keep defenses honest so his line drives land in there and OF does not cheat in a ton. I personally think it is easier to teach a contact guy how to have more power, than a power guy how to get more contact. Maybe he stays as just a .350 plus OBP with ..400 slugging about. I would be willing to send that out in the line up regularly.

International signings are even more of a crap shoot than most drafts. They are so young and you have no real clue how they will grow and develop. It used to be you also had no clue how old they really were too, but that seems to be less of issues these days. Here is to hoping one of them work out well, or like the Sano, Polonco, Kepler trio all make the majors. Some years you hit jackpots, and some years you swing and miss.

I do not understand the issue with the tax line, and how the players think going from 210 to 245 will make much of a difference. It may have a counter affect actually. First, last year only 2 teams were paying the tax, Dodgers who were way over the number, and Yankees who were just over it. Now I know that was in part because Yankees were in the repeat offender level which kicks up the amount you owe. However, only 3 teams last year had 200 mil or more, Met just over 200 mil. As of right now only 3 team is over the 210 and 2 over 214 proposed by owners now, of course there is still a couple of big names to sign, but Mets are only team over the number. No other team is close to 200 mil. The point I am making, is the players clearly are saying they want the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees to keep paying as much as they want for players without any impact. The fact no other team is close to 200 mil shows that 210 tax line is not deterring teams from signing players because of going over tax. It only deters Yankess, Mets, and Dodgers, and all three will go over, just how much and how often. Do the players think that if those big three can just keep paying more, other teams will try to outbid them? I highly doubt that. The tax line is what has allowed them to bid for some of the others. One thing the tax does is takes dead money from big three teams and gives them to lower market teams, allow them to spend more on players. Now, if you take that away it is possible those really small market teams will not even be able to pay arbitration guys and force to trade them prior to that. I would see more the players concerns if many teams were right at say 200 to 209 mil but never going over the 210 mark, but that is not the case. The players clear message is we want the big three teams to jack up the bidding for us and never be priced out, in hopes a different team takes the jump and hope they do not get burned. My guess it will look like we did in late 90's early 2000's where every top FA went to one of the top 5 spending teams with the once in awhile surprise signing, which normally resulted in a dump off trade because the team could not sustain the huge contract and the player did not give the team the funds they were hoping the big deal would bring in.

I have taken a strong interest in tracking Sabato over last season. I personally was not happy with the pick overall by the Twins, as I am not a fan of bat only guys in first round, unless they are super elite. I had a couple of questions about Sabato in FCL time that numbers could not answer. When you looked at the numbers his low slugging and low average but high OBP with huge k and walk numbers stuck out, with clear questions. First, was he being passive working counts for specific pitches to attack and never got there? Was he taking good strikes, or where pitchers really just nibbling? Second, was the league, which is known for not being a power hitting league, sapping some of his power? Meaning was he hitting wall scrappers that in other leagues would be HR or off the wall doubles? When he jumps to the higher league and starts to hit with the power expected, it suggests to me the league had a lot to do with his struggles and not his approach. Maybe his approach got adjusted some too. I will be interested to see this year if the SSS numbers in Iowa were just a fluke or not. I hope he comes out crushing and proves people like me wrong that he was not a bad pick.

Overall the top of the list looks good. The main question is how many innings they can pitch in the coming seasons. All have been limited for various reasons and the higher pitch load may affect their ability to stay as starters. I think some will make moves to pen as they shake out who will be the best starters.

It is nice to see a list of some of the good things so far. Many fans like to point out how pear shaped last year went and all the moves fell apart quickly, other than the Cruz trade, which would not have happened had they been winning. I think the next year or two will really show if the changes to organization will pay off. The starting pitchers that were brought in via trades, and drafts in the minors are starting to make way to majors. We will see if they pan out or flop, and then the FO can be really judged. A flop of a FA pitcher is nothing to judge a GM on as they happen all the time.

Every owner of teams make plenty of money from other business than baseball. Owners could fold up shop and be done and they would be fine money wise. That being said, they are also business people and want to make money. They know there is money to be made, but they are also not a charity. They should not be expected to operate at some type of loss because others count on the team operating. I wrote similar that the owners have the power in this because they do not need baseball to happen to make money, but players do. Baseball is their side jobs for owners or bonus money. Normally each side will give their wish list of wants as their starting point, then each side will start to carve away at areas they will give in to. Right now, each side is saying they are so far apart it is not worth wasting time talking. I do not know what it will take to get actual real talks going, but when both sides mistrust the other so much it is hard to have real discussions.

I understand the players demands and why they want it. However, they need to understand you need to give to get. They want a salary floor, but no cap, that is crazy in my opinion. If you want the floor you need to agree to a cap. Else, the result would be small market teams having to overpay for players that are left on the scrap heap. If there is no cap, or luxury tax, the huge market teams will still be able to keep out bidding for the top players, as nothing will really stop them, and then the smaller teams will just have to pay more for lower level players. This does not help fix the disparity of FA and small market teams, but just gets players more money. Faster to FA is good for players, and I cannot predict how it would affect teams, but unless there is something tied to years in minors as well, I think it would just cause teams to hold guys in minors even longer. In terms of player min, what I would propose would be tie compensation for pre-arbitration players to WAR. You have a min, but then if they perform well above the min they are given bonuses based on WAR. Part of the players biggest issue, and it is very valid, is that teams are using their prime years at low or controled costs, then let them walk and recently other teams were not willing to pay because they learned mid-30 years players have huge drop off unless they are HOF bound.

I am not an expert in labor law, but my limited understanding is if the owners use replacement players when they locked out the players, they could be facing long litigation with possible billions in damages. I find it highly unlikely they would go to replacement players and unless both sides have no movement on the economic side of things. Also, choosing to do replacement players early on will drive an even wider division between both sides, and maybe they get a short deal done, but it will just to lead continued issues down the road.

I have long said both sides are at fault for this. This was long time coming and neither side was willing to make steps to help. This will not be a short lockout. I expect many games to be missed. The players are upset and believe owners are taking too much of revenue. I have heard some players want to claim non-baseball derived revenue in that as well, like owners that own property around the stadiums and make money off of that. Personally, I do not think that should be included, what if the player owned say a bar next to the park, should he then pay some of his money he earns from it to other players? Owners are sick of paying huge contracts to guys that are no where close to earning it, and small market owners worry that some of the changes players want will cause them to be even more bottom feeders with smaller windows. Both sides are trying to win this lockout, and have resorted to trying to get fans on their side. For most part, I think fans do not care who wins they just want baseball to be played. Normally, I would say labor has advantage over ownership in any labor dispute. However, in this case I believe owners have the power overall. I say this because unlike in a normal industry where the owners make their money primary on that business or have stock holders they need to account to, in baseball, just about all teams are privately owned, I believe Braves have public ownership, and the owners make money from other industries. Meaning, if they just closed up shop they would not be earning no money. I am sure there are some losses they would have to deal with, but it is not like owner would homeless and not getting money from other sources. Where players if they are not playing have to either fall back on investments if they have them, or go work other jobs. Unless they have earned life changing money they will have to find jobs somewhere at some point. Owners can wait them out if they want to "win" the lockout. However, as each side tries to win the lockout, both sides lose. Fans get upset and will spend their money on other things. Who else loses are the rank and file employees of the teams. The ticket sale people, the game day workers, and the businesses that rely on game day traffic to survive. The players and owners fight over how to divide up billions of dollars, while some people that live pay check to paycheck wonder if they will have a job. Both sides look terrible the more they try to get fans to jump on their side. Both sides really need to sit down and have real talks and lay out their issues and try to find some common ground.

I wonder why writer did not include Morris in this, as he had a 4.3 war in 91, according to baseball reference. By WAR, that is tied for Cruz as best, but I would say if you include his post-season numbers Morris would be best vet season.

I am not mad they signed Buxton, but the author wanted him signed, and then says now they also need to get a legit MLB backup for him. That was always my issue with Buck, is his constant missing games and only able to count on about 80 games a year and a need for a backup. At nearly 15 a year you should expect you can get a full season from him. Now, if we do not have a viable backup for him in the system we need to go out and trade for or sign one. Well, if they are a legit MLB CF you cannot afford to pay for a starter to be a back up, unless they play corner spot and slide over when needed. To me, since you paid him, you need to hope his health stays, or hope your system has someone that can fill in. Do not go out and pay someone else to fill in when needed. Then you are investing way too much money in CF because your guy cannot stay on field.