Trov

One thing I would point out, is those young prospects on the 40 man rosters get votes for contracts and they count just as much as much as the 10 year vets. I am not saying they should vote for a contract the union is against, as they will have to live with it, but as someone who is in a union right now dealing with contract talks, not everyone has the same motivation for a contract. Personally, I think the rank and file lower talent players would care more about league min pay, and getting a salary floor, even if it came with a cap. If there is a cap, this will not hurt the low level talent getting paid, but only the very top few players that make crazy money. However, with a floor, some teams will have to spend money, so they will spend more on mid level talent players because it has to be spent. What got us to this point is the top players get paid, but the mid level to lower level talent is losing their market share of the money, and they are upset. It used to be mid level talent was still getting big money, but teams adjusted to not paying them higher money, just because they are the top FA of the season, when the next class has say 10 players better. Teams learned to not spend big in one year of weak free agents. Players think that if allow more spending by rich teams this will help all players make more money from every team, but that makes no sense. If this lockout lasts well into the season, the players that have just started making mlb level money will start to feel the pressure of no paychecks. However, if MLB tries to go that route, they will hurt the game as well. I think we are going that route, as both sides want to beat the other side and win the deal in the fan's eyes as well. It will backfire I believe and they will be in for a rude awaking when the game finally does return.

Although Donaldson did not miss a bunch of time, he still has major injury concerns. His sprint speed is about as fast a turtle stuck in mud. He has no plans of pushing his legs just in case. I am not saying that is a bad thing, as his bat still has value, but you cannot tell me every time he tries to open it up you hold your breath wondering if his calf will explode.

I do not think it is an unattractive destination for free agents. I just think the front offices over the years have not wanted to invest heavy in any "big fish" free agent. Really, outside of the big few teams, the LA's the New Yorks, Boston, Cubs, Nationals, Phillies, and San Diego(who has overpaid bad for a few guys), not too many teams have brought in that "big fish" Resigning your own is not bringing in a big fish, so even when other teams resign their own to big deals that were free agents, like Rockies who signed some of their own guys but rarely get other big name free agents., I think you would be hard pressed to find too many teams that have regularly gone out for big fish. Unless you are one of the few teams I listed, rarely do many other teams dip toe into the big name free agent pool, and it is normally a one off thing. It also comes down to what is considered a big fish. Although we will rarely know what is the driving force for a free agent to sign somewhere. It may be the money, it may be the team is close to a championship, it may organization, others around, the community generally. I have a feeling that in most big fish talks, it is that Twins are not willing to invest the time and money the players end up getting. Which, in my opinion is not always a bad thing. I believe very few long term contracts pan out well for the team. Yes, some do but overall, going out to get the most expensive FA has not normally moved the team to a championship, and in some cases the teams look to trade them away and do better with others.

I am not sure how the lockout works with the guys on the 40 man, but not yet called up to MLB level. I would assume they are still part of the lockout. For those not on the 40 man, to my understanding they will still report to FL, do their work outs and do the minor league ball thing, just without the guys on the 40 man roster. So if they are not on the 40 man, I think they will benefit from the lock out, as they will get more training with the coaches, as 40 less guys will be around during this time of year.

You make a fair point about the ticket prices, but the prices only go up if the fans are willing to pay it. The scalpers take a risk that fans will not pay the increased cost. I saw a story the other years that scalpers took huge hit when fans were not paying the increased costs to certain events. If the fans stay united, and not pay above face value for tickets, then the cost will not go up, but fans cannot stay united. Now, there is also the cost of advertising, which eventually pushes back on consumers too. As more people watch games on TV, it leads to higher ratings, which leads TV channels to charge more for commercial time. They then pay more for the rights to air the games, and pass that onto advertising and to channel providers, which then gets passed onto us. As your provider of the TV channel the game is shown on, cable, satellite, or cord cutting paths, all that gets passed onto the consumer. Now, if people stopped watching on TV then the networks would have less advertising money, and would pay less to get the rights to the games. I know the fans will never band together in a full boycott to really show the MLB and players who really has the power. We are not organized enough to stand strong. I just wish we did.

Where are you getting the numbers? To my knowledge, unless you work for the team, other than Atlanta, none of those numbers are available to even the players, part of the issue they have. The Owners say they cannot afford it, but you say the Twins could double their payroll and still make money? I would like to know how you have seen the books on that. I am not saying you are wrong, I just doubt it. Also, the Rays, would have to have about 4 times their payroll to reach the Yankees or Dodgers.

He must not have had many teams knocking on his door. He will be down the depth chart here, and unless he really plays well, he will not see much playing time here. I do not expect much from him, other than playing in St. Paul with possible play when injuries hit. Good luck to him, and maybe he impresses and can be flipped for something later in the year.

First it is when the season is delayed, because it will be. Then it really depends on how delayed it is. I would assume if only by a few weeks, it may be part of the agreement, but may do some built in DH to make up, or just cancel them. Most likely they will need to rewrite the schedule if they cancel games. I expect a full rewritten schedule with a reduced amount of games, just how many will be the question.

I really wish both sides would stop releasing media statements, in some effort to get fans on their side. Fans really do not care how the money gets split up. We want to watch baseball, and in small and mid market games we want to see our teams keep their home grown talent not the continued revolving door of trading them away or manipulating service time. We want to see the best players play and good games. The bickering on how OUR money gets split up between billionaires and millionaires really does not help fans care. The more I read and see coverage of each side releasing statements for the fans, it just makes me angry. Do either side understand that if we the fans just stop watching then there will be no money to fight over? Maybe, the fans should call on a lockout/boycott of games for like 1 month after the game returns. No watching, to attending games, all season ticket holders cancel their tickets. I think the two sides should take the fans input into these since they keep wanting to tell the fans how great and reasonable their proposals are. I propose, all tickets to attend games get cut 50%, all players and manager contracts get cut 25% or they are required to donate 25% of contracts to charities in the community. All food at stadium is sold at 10% above cost. If the two sides really care what I think that is my input, until they want to hear my input, leave the talks behind closed doors.

Cavaco was only higher on the list because of his draft status, but even then he was not very high on many lists. He was seen as a very high risk high reward kind of pick. He is still young and can grow, but I am not optimistic on him. What really sucks is a SS from college picked the exact next pick is looking like he will be making majors next year, Cavaco still has a couple years before you call him a complete miss, but he has not shown much so far. We will see what next year brings.

Kepler is who he is. He is not going to out of no where become some great hitter that gets MVP votes. He will be serviceable with good defense. He will not out of no where rake against lefties. He tried to change his approached last year to be more complete hitter, only to struggle and try to go back to old style. If he can get back to who he was before his attempted adjustment he will be fine. I am a fan of trying to adjust to get better, but some players just need to be who they are. I remember Jaques Jones years ago as lead off hitter was not typical. He would attack first fastballs, similar to Kepler. Jones was great at attacking first fastballs. Then he said he was going to take more walks and work counts more. He did this and got many more walks, but his average dropped and his OBP dropped too. His walks doubled. This happened because he was not attacking first fastballs, which many times is best pitch to swing at. His change in approach hurt him overall, because the pitchers did not change their approach to him, he just was trying to change his to get better, but it backfired. Sometimes if things are not broke, do not fix it. Yes, getting better should be the goal, but sometimes it does not work and you need to return to what does.

First, I think the idea is okay, if a floor will be imposed without a solid cap, why have a solid floor. I think the penalties would need to be different for players to like it though. One, the revenue sharing should get split up to players somehow, not just left in the league or with the large market teams, and maybe even just shared with the players on the team. I would also think there should be something based on how many players are on pre-arb timelines. Meaning, if a team has a lot of pre-arb players they should not be as punished, if at all. The reason I have issue with a floor, without a hard cap, is it will force some teams to spend more on players just to get above the floor. That will lead to lower talent players getting paid more, which is what the players want, but then the high level players will start to point out they are so much better than the lower talent guys and they now need to earn more. It will not help with competitive balance, it will just cause some teams to pay more for less.

How do we know his elbow will be fine going forward? You said he has generally been healthy, so we have nothing to judge how he will bounce back from it, or if it will be lingering issue. Even if he does bounce back, very few SS stay elite on the other side of 30. Also, what evidence is there that he will produce anywhere close to the same level of offense with Twins as he did in CO. His home road splits are terrible over his career. I have not done a deep dive into each park, and how he may compare to Target Field, but his history has shown he does not hit well away from Coors Field. I commented saying I would be fine on a shorter term deal for him, but I think any team that signs him to anything more than 5 years will really regret anything after 5, and may regret anything after 3. Maybe I will be wrong, but I feel Twins cannot take those long term risks.

I have a feeling the FO saw similar things and felt he was worth a shot. Sometimes guys just have an off year and make adjustments to bounce back. I hope the Twins can unlock something from him, and at very least if needed flip him at deadline for some value if we are not competing.

I have been very much against Story for his reported asking price or expected signing number. I would not want him for very long term at a huge number. Now, if he is willing to accept say a 3 to 4 year deal at a reasonable per year number I would be more open. He is aging, declining in numbers on both offense and defense, has terrible home road splits. I am fine with checking on him for short term, but doing a 6 to 8 year deal is way out of question. I think they Twins would greatly regret that long of a deal and be tied to an aging sub par offense guy that gets moved off of SS, and by end of deal fans will be so happy he is gone. Clubs like the Twins cannot take big swings and misses on long term deals. Even high market teams like Angels who have had many swings and misses start to pile up and never pay off in long run. Story comes with a huge buyer beware tag in my opinion.

I think Gordon will have the biggest potential impact with the team. Mainly it is based on the fact that he can play most positions. He may be asked to step in at CF when Buxton is hurt, fill in different infield spots too. He has a history of slow adaption to each level, but has always grown and been good at each level when healthy.

In all trades, if the price is right you should do it. However, this trade really questions if the price will be right. As noted, Rays always seem to know when to trade someone, getting Glasnow for a trade of Archer, who was terrible after his trade. Snell was not good after his trade. Davide Price is one of only a few guys that got traded by Rays that had good value after they left. I am always hesitant to buy from the Rays. Selling to them is not so bad, but trying to get an established player from them always seems to work out for Rays. That being said, if the price Glasnow is low that you can wait for a year to use him, then take a flier on him. However, why would Rays trade him at lowest of his value? They never do that, and they would not take pennies on the dollar for him. I believe they would much rather have him come back some time end of season, if healthy to showcase him and trade next off-season. If not that, then they would wait until next season and trade mid-season unless they need him to compete and feel returns are not worth it. They have been known to let guys walk too. My guess only way Rays trade him now is if teams are really betting on him coming back at same level, and they will sign him. Should the Twins be willing to deal for an injured Glasnow at a price of a nearly if not fully healthy Glasnow, because I highly doubt Rays will sell for cheap.

I believe a couple of things have really affected baseball over the years. One, the cost of going to games has increased so much that it makes it hard for a family to go. It used to be really cheap to go, and you could go to several games a year. Now, a family rarely has the money to go more than one or two times. Two, the game has not evolved with the changing viewing of fans. As teams have learned what makes winning more likely, it is dropped the excitement of the game a ton. The fact that a game may take into 4 hours with little action has affected some fans in my opinion. Further the lack of evolving for the fans in terms of entertainment. You never have sound bites of players really getting excited. If you see a player watch a HR or something like that they get dogged and say they are breaking unwritten rules. NFL used to be called the "no fun league" because when players danced after getting a touchdown or other things they were flagged. Now, the league said hey, we have a whole group of fan base where they pay money in a video game to have dances to show off, why not allow are players to do the same. Baseball has evolved to have less balls in play, and more pitching changes. Less stolen bases, less bunting, overall just less stuff going on. For the most part in some games is basically a HR derby on how can hit more. If baseball does not look out, it will really drop down in popularity, and as players leave to play other sports then you will lose even more fans too.

I would say there is movement, but it is very small movement. On the major issues both sides are still very far apart. This is not good and needs to make huge movement soon, or we will lose games. The fact that the owners are not willing to share their financials with players keeps that distrust going. It suggests that they are taking a much larger slice of the pie and are worried once the players see it will upset the players. This may be true, under the why are you hiding this info kind of thing.

Who was giving up on him? I know his early part of his career was not good, but it give up on a guy after one bad half a season, even more so in first pro ball experience shows some short sighted view on prospects.

So if a pitcher does not have success in post-season then they are not HOF worthy? Fact is other than post-season numbers, Koufax post season numbers were great, but Sanata's was not terrible as a starter. He only had 1 bad game, rest were above replacement level. It is not his fault the team did not advance, or failed to score for him at all. My point in my post is careers were in line of seasons, and overall numbers were on par, but no one questions Koufax should be in hall, but very few, as shown by 1 and done vote, think Santana should be in at all. It makes no sense to me. I hate the post season argument, as some great players never get to play in post season. Mike Trout is most likely a first ballot guy, but only has 1 post season series, with 1 hit in 12 at bats. Should he be left out because his post season career to this point has been terrible?

I get the point you are making that some times closers were better suited there, but I have a couple of issues with your post. First, starters have much more of an impact on the game overall than a closer, just by pure fact they pitch more innings. Also, you point out the first out is not same as last out with bases loaded in 1 run game, but in that example, the closer let the bases get loaded most likely, maybe not if there was a huge lead and they had to come in before lead was blown. I see you also used the WPA number, which I am not a fan of. First, it is weighed much heavier for relief pitchers if they come in when someone else got them in a jam and leave runners on base, but starters get less credit for having a quick 1 2 3 inning. Closer get boost for coming in close game, but starter gets less credit if they pitched a shutout in a game where the team scored 10 runs from them. So the starter did great by not allowing a run, but WPA is lower because his team scored a lot of runs. WPA is fine to compare with other relievers, but I do not like comparing to starters. I guess I would ask you this. In 2004 through 2007, both were on the team. If you would have had to pick one to keep, which player would you have wanted? If you can say Nathan because he may have had a higher WPA, but WPA does not mean someone other than Nathan may not have got those outs. I would take the guy that pitched 911 innings versus 281. Satana had 3 times the amount of innings. Sure, where some of his lower leverage, yes, but so where Nathans.

100 Percent Santana was the bigger snub. He was one of the best starters for several years of his career. He had injuries, that may have been because the Mets needed a no-hitter and did not care if his arm fell off, that cut his career short. If you look at another HOF pitcher in a similar situation, Sandy Koufax, Santana had similar career numbers and both had injury issues that cut career short. Johan pitched in less games, but had a higher WAR for his career. Their win percents of wins of starts made are 39 percent for Santana and 41 percent for Koufax, so nearly the same. K rates were about the same 8.8 to 9.3 per 9 innings. Career ERA is not far off either. The issue was Koufax ended at top of his game, where Santana peak was before the injury ended his career for good. However, they both played 12 seasons as well. I was shocked when Santana was a 1 and done on the ballot, how did voters completely dismiss him when he has about the same, if not slightly better than other HOF pitcher. It was just crazy.

What annoys me the most about the demanded increase by the players is they claim it will help the league be more competitive. How do they even justify that claim? In no way would it help balance the league out. They also want to take away revenue sharing, with the same argument. So the players think it will be good to take shared money from small market teams and give back to large markets that already spend over 100 mil more than the average team and allow those large markets to spend even more, in a way to make it more competitive. That makes no sense. I do agree with players that the shared money should have to go to signing players though or at least a large percent. However, to get back to the question, no raising the tax is not good for game. Only a couple of teams are even close to it right now blocking them from signing anyone. Some teams may be blocked from signing a mega contract because they are within like say 30 mil, but that is very few teams.

I had a very similar argument years ago, when at all-star break Twins were around .500, but run differential was not in line with record. The all antilytic people said the Twins will have a bad second half because run differential says so. I argued, run differential is not a predictive stat, but just a number. People would push back and say history shows the record cannot be sustained with that run differential. I replied again, you are looking at what happened, not what will happen. The number only says it is unlikely if the differential stays the same the record will remain well, but what is to say the run differential will not change, the difference only says it is likely they two will not stay in line as they were, but nothing says the record would drop. What happened was the run differential got better. Where I am going is, stats are only numbers of the past, they do not predict the future. They can be used to help go hand in hand with ones eyes to determine what is most likely to happen, but not set in stone. In Moneyball they used example of Kevin Youkillis who had an odd stance and scouts said he will need to change that to do well at MLB, but the antilytic person pointed out he was doing just fine how he was doing. Just looking at numbers will never tell the full story. I have commented about Sabato and his numbers in Fort Myers. I wanted to know what led to the numbers. He had huge walk rate, and K rate, with terrible BABIP, low sluggling and average. The question I had, was he getting pitches to hit and missing or was he being pitched around? Was he hitting wall scrapers or popping up when he did put ball in play? The numbers raised an eye brow, to look deeper. Many like to use analytics for Keplar in saying his numbers should have gone up over his career, because hard hit rate was not in line with BABIP. However, year after year, numbers were the same. I said at some point you just have to accept he is the exception. There is no single number that can predict future output. You cannot decided who to have on a roster just based on numbers. Take Trevor Plouffe as an example. If you looked at his HR you would say he had a couple of good years, but when you look at fact most were solo, you would find out, he would hit so many HR when huge leads or behind huge and lower talent pitchers would serve up fastballs, but when guys were on base and pitcher bared down Plouffe would fail more often than not. When past front office and mangers hated new analytics, I would get so mad, because they were given data to find edges, but they would dismiss it and go with old school ways, never looking at reverse splits in some pitchers or hitters. I remember Joe Madden with Rays would have his switch hitters bat same side for a few pitchers because they were reverse split pitchers due to type of pitches they used. That is where analyitcs can be helpful. All one way or the other is bad, you need to merge the two in my opinion. It is important to remember not all the numbers take contex into account. They try to narrow it down, but looking at inning, score, runners on base, counts, pitcher, all those things are important to get the contex of where the numbers came from.