Platoon

Theres a lot of jabs thrown at ownership for being greedy, and rightfully so. But the MLB players union has some fault here also. They seem/are more interested in protecting the established players at all costs. They forget where they came from and how hard it was to get there. They are a microism of the "we worked hard to make it, you can to" bunch. Sooner or later there is going to be some kind of correction to the agreement between owners and players. Strike? Who knows. But it's going to be hard to choose a side, if the players union doesn't start to focus on all the players.

I know the 13 man staff causes bench problems, but overall I am still sorry to see Vargas go. Hope he ends up somewhere where he gets a good amount of AB's without being yo yo'ed up and down. No idea how successful he will be, but here was the wrong place at the wrong time.

When regarding the risks owners take, remember the definition of the word risk. While there are huge numbers involved, and yes they could lose money on a financial statement, there is no real risk here. But in today's environment of revenue sharing and new ball parks with government funding, it's really hard to call it a risk. Plus don't forget the big issue here. Appreciation. These clubs are worth multiples of what they were before. It would take the collapse of the entire financial structure of the country for the owners to lose a dime on baseball overall. There is no "risk", simply the level of the reward. This isn't meant to mean there is no risk in business, just that there is virtually none in this one!

This may be a poor analogy, but here goes. I know someone who has a business, that when she sees someone at a store with a Wix card trying to buy something that is not on the approved list, she goes ape bleep. "They should be kicked off, they are abusing the system"! This same person has an exceptional imagination when deciding what is a deductible business expense. She sees nothing wrong with gaming that system. My point to her is everyone takes liberties to advantage themselves. You cannot stop that deeply engrained personality trait. That leaves you with changing the system to make it correct the abuses as best you can. You won't stop someone from working the new system, but you can try and make it as palatable as possible. None of the problems, real or imagined in the current MLB operation are going away via voluntary actions. The players, teams and agents will continue to push the envelope. In essence it's simply the free market rearing its (ugly) head.

I think there was more in play here. Metrics, both the quality and quantity of FA, the impending high end FA market next year, the luxury tax, and the teams trying to reset their basis in prep for next year. Add to that the realization by teams that, despite Brian Doziers contention, fans are not interested in being middling competitive. Meaning tanking is more in vogue than ever. There are no flags for winning 82 games as a rule. Some of these issues will remain in place for the foreseeable future. But it will be interesting, and likely disruptive, to see how it all shells out.

I think two things need to be considered. Is the commissioner taking into consideration any of the reports of Sanos alleged behavior in milb? And the fact that the other examples listed happened before Me2? I am not here to debate Me2, simply to note that it has changed the discourse and perception on the topic!

A somewhat lengthly piece by Thomas Boswell regarding the Nationals contract issues, and in essence all of baseballs. He admits that whether this winter was a permanent change in contract negotiations and amounts is sort of a wait and see, I would bet that it is forever changed. Hopefully a new labor agreement would address some of these issues. But that negotiation could get ugly. It seems the owners currently hold most of the cards. What I don't think that will change for the time being will be the "pecking order" of the teams in terms of shelling out contract money. This is all relative. A low ball team will not compete with the Yankees/Dodgers just because old era money would now suffice. The one thing that will throw a wrench into all of the ongoing conjecture on the future of 30 year olds getting long term mega deals is the owners own greed and ego. Will someone start inching up to acquire that desired roster piece, and then the rachet continues? Anyway an interesting article by Boswell. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/bryce-harper-isnt-getting-400-million-and-the-nationals-title-window-just-got-bigger/2018/03/14/dba67e5c-279b-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.c96996960184

I have considered this theory about the defense of a SS being less important in the game today. It may even be valid. But I hope not. Watching the athletiscm of a very good defensive SS is one of the joys of the game. But if because of the long fly ball becoming such a dominant part of the game, that is lost, the game will not be enhanced. I for one see nothing good coming out of watching guys hit fly balls, some of which even clear the fence, and striking out at record levels. Then again I may be simply a dinasour, and the newer fans will enjoy the new style. As usual, time, and attendance will tell.

My version of the SS position is thus: I want a very good fielding SS who can hit enough to play. I prefer that to a very good hitting SS, who can field good enough to play. They could be seen as a trade off, except it's a defensive position by nature. Regrettably Polanco is in the latter category.

I like this FO much better than the previous one. They seemed to make more or less the best of what they had in front of them. I mostly discount the Darvish issue as something that won't change. No matter that all FA lists are relative, we are not going to ever sign the top dogs while JP owns the Twins. This left them to do what they could with the next tier. I agree they deserve a high mark. What I wonder about is whether this is a repeatable philosophy, or operating theory. Or was it the result of a weird year for the FA market due to things like the luxury tax issue, an odd mix of talent, and which teams were actively competing for FA's? Since I don't ever expect the Twins to sign the big fish, if they can continue this type of flexible and semi aggressive thinking, I think they have a good chance to be a competitive franchise moving forward. What happens at the trade deadline will be another benchmark. And it will be interesting to see if the FA market returns to "normal" next year, how they play in the same pool as the Sharks.

Cool!

One can simply take Mauers contract as an example. Everyone involved made an internal deal with themselves. Mauer likely took less per year on the front side in return for length and security. A good idea. The Twins didn't need analytics to know they were going to get the short end of the stick in years 9-10 for sure. And they knew that 10 injury free years was almost impossible. They balance that with the fact that they picked up money on the front end, and shifted it to the back, in theory. And they needed to consider the incalculable damage to the team done by not signing Mauer to a contract, based on the time, situation, and player involved. Point is, there is a lot of moving parts in a market price. And they are all current and situational. While opinions and principles are all well and good about the fairness of the market variations, they are a moot point. You're either make a competitive bid, or you don't. While there will eventually be an adjustment to the labor agreement, it likely won't change the fact that the personality of the owner will have a huge impact on the teams willingness to meet the street price for talent.

I completely understand the concept. But is there a line drawn where certain players would not benefit from this. Smaller less powerful hitters. Guys whose well struck fly balls are ending up on the warning track. And doesnt this, no matter the terminology, make hitting a competitive version of home run derby. If you are changing the essence of your swing to hit the ball over the fence, that's what it amounts to. Lastly, if that is the fact, how does one equate this philosophy with "working the count"? Would you not instead be ready to hit the first good FB or hanger you see? Since there is a significant difference in BA when behind in the count, I can't believe the HR rate would not suffer the same fate? Or worse? It just seems to me that emphasizing hitting long flys would have impacts all over the game.

I would think by now both the agents and the FO types know this is an odd year, or the beginning of a sea change. Either way, the agents have to know the FO's are bargain shopping, and the FO have to know the agents will listen to what used to be low ball offers. It's too late in the spring for your feelings to be hurt. If you put a couch on CL for $300, and 2 months later it's still sitting in your living room, you may just edit your ad to include, OBO!

Or TwinkieLeaks

Assuming your numbers are correct. . I never expect the Twins to be able to compete with NY, LA, Cubs, etc year to year on big contracts. Nor spend uselessly in a down cycle, aka tanking. That said, I still have always thought the Pohlads were particularly tight fisted when it came to financially backing the purchase of a FA who could be a season changer. That's been my constant complaint about ownership. But these percentages are consistently low over that cycle. I can live with some 43% some years, but you better be banking that money for the 55% years when you want to make a run at it!

Worse yet, it could help you get elected!

It seems part of this is the perfect storm as some have mentioned. But another part is the change is the type of FO personnel and analytics. Example: For years the Twins seemed to levitate in the middle. Not spendimg big bucks on FA to make a true run at a pennant, yet signing enough mediocre veterans to win enough games to stay out of the top of the draft. See Phil Hughes. Sounded good to a lot of fans, but mostly did little to make the team playoff caliber. The new FO types seem to have come to the conclusion that the older FA are not worth the money as that few have the ability to advance you past what you have already, and cheaper. Does WAR encourage that analysis? Quite likely. The new FO types also seem to be more proactive. Either go for it, or set things up to go for it. (tanking). All sports tank. But it seems MLB unique form of minor leagues, options, 3 year minimum salaries. 3 year arbitration, and individual media contracts exacerbate the problem. The league is a franchise. For the franchise to be successful they have to "give" each franchisee an opportunity to be successful, all things being equal. That can never happen if they turn the players into FA at an earlier age. Or start trading draft picks. Don't get me wrong, I am with the players. But their overall success and income level will be improved if they decide that a restructure is necessary, but that the goal is not seeing a few players get more, but all get something more. And that it is in their best interest to have as many teams competitive as possible. And for their part the owners will have to solve the inequitable amount of media contract revenue available to each team. While I don't have the answer, it's not going to be solvable by a simple tweaking of this system. Baseball talent, ergo baseball contracts analysis has changed forever. The league and players will have to adjust to that fact.

Not too much to add, you are pretty much in line with my thoughts on the issue. I would imagine RG goes north. Management types cannot resist the opportunity to take one last look. What would concern me is if RG was just passable, and too experienced, and expensive, to walk away from. And with Morrison taking his DH time, Molitor would feel it necessary to give RG OF innings. Ugh! With a SO oriented pitching staff, this would be barely acceptable. But despite the FO acquisitions this off season, this remains in essence a PTC staff. And with the emphasis on fly ball hitting, it could be almost said that an OF'ers defense abilities, are starting to equate a SS one.

I think Brian is right. Granites options virtually doom him. And if the leash is short enough on the survivor of this contest, that's the best one can hope for. I imagine it will be RG. Switch hitter, OF, and OBP. But the thought of him still being on the roster doesn't exactly make me perky. His only somewhat positive is OBP, which has suffered as of late. He can't throw, can't run, and his defense will require an enormous amount of walks to carry. A good baseball team should have no room for a R. Grossman. But I fear we will.

Those SS innings behind the plate from Garver were less than impressive defensively. We better hope it was just butterflies he felt, instead of it looking like he was trying to catch one!

I think these are all valid points that John has reported Tony Clark believes affect the market. But I am surprised the issue of more analytical FO's and their supposed cooling on the practice of buying the last 3 good years of a veteran player, with a 6 year contract was not part of the discussion. i think to an extent that will continue to lower contracts, or at least lengths of them. As for tanking, that is common in other sports. Revenue sharing can be a factor. But as long as drafting in inverse order is in place, there will always be a race to the bottom. The NBA has done it for years. Different league, same issue. And they buy and sell contracts like commodities as well. There were a lot of moving parts to this years FA market, which was already weak at best. It might take a couple years to see if Clark is right. But I do think there is a change in philosophy in the majority of FO. More executives believe they can win by being smarter, not richer. That may well be a factor in changing contract structure. But sooner or later the fact that being smarter, and richer is even better, than just being smarter, will again become evident. That doesn't mean 6 year contracts for 32 yr. old pitchers will continue, but it does mean that someone will still be overpaying for players services, just possibly for shorter lengths of time.

The teams last three years, more likely 4 years were schizophrenic. And last years seemingly successful season was not looking good at the break. Closing the year out by getting bombed in NY didn't generate any enthusiasm either. There's just too many gaps for the average fan. One has to go into the season knowing it's going to be a good year, not hoping it will. And those empty early season seats can't be recouped.

The fact that the Twins are touting the lack of a need for a fifth starter ignores the fact that the fifth starter is actually needed. He will be pitching not every 5 days, but every 4. Sadly it's the Twins first starter that will be missing those games, something Molitor selectively avoids mentioning, at least to The extent he can. So in essence Molitor does have to name a fifth starter on day 4 of the season, for short of injury or performance deficientcy, that pitcher will be in the rotation from day one going forward. It's the first starter he doesn't have to name, that guy has a cast on his hand.

Defense, and pitching is defense, wins the most consistently in any sport. That's because it's more easily repeatable. And that's magnified in the baseball playoffs, where offenses cannot feast on the 4-5 starters. Doc has a point on the 3 number 2's theory. But it is complicated if you get stuck in the WC one and done. Other than that, I would rather have the 3 number 2's than a 1,3,4 combo.