chpettit19

I don't disagree. I think it is likely a core part of their team building strategy to not spend big money on pitching extensions or free agents. At this point it seems silly to me to continue to beat the dead horse of the FO not spending on big money arms. They're not going to do it so why discuss it as a possibility when it clearly isn't?

That's fair, but doesn't change the situation. We don't know the behind the scenes of why he wasn't going to sign an extension here. Maybe the FO lowballed him (wouldn't be surprised), maybe he didn't want to stay in Minneapolis, maybe he really was planning on testing FA. We'll never know. But if they wouldn't/couldn't extend him it made no sense to hold onto him during a lost season and turn down a package like they got in return.

I was replying to a comment where the other person compared the trades. Your comment was quite productive, though. Thanks.

I think he likely has a stint or 2 on the IL each of the next 2 years. Kind of reminds me of Pineda in that he'll be rock solid when he's available, but likely goes down for 2 weeks at some point. He's a good pitcher, but certainly not an ace and isn't a difference maker on his own. Weird deal if this is the roster on April 7.

For what timeframe? This year or the next 6? That's the question. They weren't going to extend Berrios, that is now abundantly clear. So you'd only have Berrios for this year. If that's still your stance that's totally fine. I don't see the logic in it, but to each their own.

Really hard to compare innings between the AL and NL when the pitchers hit and were taken out of games for pinch hitters while AL pitchers didn't have to worry about that.

If you're comparing/combining the trades it was Berrios and Petty for Gray, Martin, and SWR. Now I don't like the Gray trade if they aren't going out and adding more (Story and another pitcher) for this year as he doesn't add nearly enough to compete yet. But as a comparison of the trades the Twins came out with a similar ML pitcher with an extra year of control for cheap, a 5th overall pick, and a borderline top 100 prospect while giving up the ML pitcher with less control and a 26th overall pick. That's a win for the Twins in a vacuum.

Man, some people really ride the rollercoaster on these moves. I've given up predicting where this offseason will go. Was pretty neutral on the first couple trades as they looked to be deals to fill specific holes on the current roster, but I wasn't overly excited as I didn't think they moved the needle much. With this move I'm just going to sit back and see what the opening day roster looks like because there's clearly more at play. Moving JD's contract as a salary dump makes no sense after bringing Gray in for Petty so to me it looks pretty obvious they're planning more. Let's see where things are by the end of the week when they start playing some ST games, and, more importantly, April 7 when they host the Mariners.

Just some FYIs...Kevin Gausman signed a 5 year 110M deal with the Blue Jays before the lockout so I'm guessing you're thinking someone else. Kiner-Falefa is likely not on the trade block anymore after the Ranger's top 3B prospect (Josh Jung), who was supposed to fight for the opening day job at 3B had surgery on his shoulder a couple weeks ago so he's out until August and I'm guessing they'll want to hold onto Kiner-Falefa now.

They're saying "let's not let this hurdle hold up the entire deal." Not sure how that's a bad thing. They are saying if they agree to the rest of the CBA they'll sign the deal now and give themselves a few more months to figure out the international draft. If they can't agree on it by July 15 they'll readdress it in the next CBA. Not sure how this is a bad thing. This is the most "fan friendly" move they've made in trying to get a deal done today instead of fighting over this 1 last thing.

Yikes. That's an absolutely brutal run of 1st round picks (even if Buxton didn't have his injury problems and was winning MVPs). Stewart, Gordon, Jay is awful. Jay is by far the worst, though. You can't take a college reliever 6th overall. So bad.

Will be interesting to see what the rule on shifts becomes exactly and what that does to Kepler's BA.

And they apparently can't afford their homegrown superstar first baseman on "only" 104M in profit...

CBT for the top or bottom spenders based on arbitrary numbers (100M floor or 238M "cap") doesn't help the players in terms of their overall cut of the revenue pie. Why do people assume if you put a 100M floor out there that the teams at the bottom of the spending spectrum would go out and sign "middle class" players and wouldn't just be going after the big name guys and running out a team with 2 guys at 30M and a bunch of guys at the minimum (like the Rangers are about to do)? If I'm the owner of the Pirates and you're going to make me spend 100M I'm not going out and signing 3 Pineda's for 15M a piece, I'm signing a Max Scherzer for 45M. He'll sell more tickets and jerseys than the 3 Pineda's combined which puts more money in my pocket. So the goal of spreading the money around to all players still isn't met. FOs are too smart and understand the goal is to get the most wins for the least amount of dollars. The low revenue teams signing some of the big guys just means the teams at the top would be spending less. You can argue that's better for the game, but I don't buy the argument that that's what the players should be fighting for because it'd be better for all players. Eddie Rosario types wouldn't suddenly be worth 15M a year. The NFL and NBA (and I believe NHL) base their cap situations on league revenue and the negotiations during the CBA talks are over what cut goes to the players to set the floor and cap. It's true that the players don't want a cap because they want to be able to have players make as much as possible and that's easier to accomplish when you let the Cohen's of the world loose to spend like crazy. But the owners don't want one either. At least not in the NBA and NFL style where they have to open their books and share revenue numbers with the PA. Of course the owners want a 100M floor and 180M cap. The teams receiving revenue sharing are still subsidized by the big money teams, and those big money teams would make ludicrous amounts of money by not being allowed to spend more than the 180 cap.

What does the average team in baseball make every year outside of 2020?

Except both sides have agreed to expanded playoffs to increase league wide revenue, and revenue for teams who actually build good teams. The MLBPA agreed to allowing more advertising opportunities for the owners with helmet decals and/or jersey patches. I have no problem with you being "on the owners side," but you're misrepresenting a lot in this thread. Edited to add MLB just added another revenue stream with Apple TV+ and have thus restricted viewing access even more while pocketing what one could only assume is a massive amount of money. Those owners really out there losing tons of money in the name of bettering the game.

You're misrepresenting the situation here. They haven't agreed to all of those things at the same time. That combination of things has never, and will never, be part of 1 offer. You've picked and chosen different concessions they've made at different times, but aren't representing any singular offer the owners have made. For example they never agreed to raise the CBT 30% while also implementing a 100MM floor. I don't direct my negative feelings at only the owners, I have negative feelings for all involved. It's greed on all sides creating this problem. Both sides are to blame for this and neither of them truly have the best interests of baseball or the fans at heart. The pre-arb bonus pool the owners are willing to do right now is $1MM per team. Let's not act like that's some sort of massive concession on their part. And that 30% increase to the CBT still wouldn't get them even close to matching the increase in revenue they've seen. The CBT has gone from $117MM to $210MM from 2003 to 2021 while revenue has gone from 3.8 billion in 2003 to 10.37 in 2019. The players are certainly trying to play catchup after getting smashed in the last couple CBAs, but I can't blame them too much while I also can't give the owners too much credit for still not increasing the CBT anywhere close to in line with the rise in revenues.

Baseball won't be hurt until the TV contracts quit growing. When will that be? I don't know nearly enough to even guess, but I find it hard to believe their next one will keep up with inflation as they see their viewership continue to decline. Baseball has been so miserable at content creation and providing their fans with access to the game. They deserve this. Unfortunately the fans don't deserve this, but they're stuck with it anyways. Baseball (owners and players) should be embarrassed.

I'd expect them to use the same sort of data this year that they did last year. Tracking spin rate, release point, velo, etc. to see when he starts tiring in each start and make their decision on when to take him out based on that. I think they'll use it for all their young starters, and maybe even Bundy, Cotton, etc. I'd think their goal will be to get 32 or 33 starts out of him. The length of those starts based on the tracking of a variety of in game data points. I'd expect him to be up and down, like any pitcher. I'm not suggesting he should be viewed as any sort of savior or stud rotation arm, but I find it overly, and unnecessarily, negative for h20 to suggest he shouldn't be viewed as someone who can stick in the majors. An up and down season with some clunker starts, but more very good starts and an ERA around 4 seems more than reasonable based on his minor league track record and his performance over 20+ starts last year. He could certainly fall apart, just like is a risk with any other player, but I didn't see anything last year to suggest he shouldn't be counted on as a #4 or 5 pitcher this year with the chance to be a #3 type in the prime of his career. I like Sands as a sleeper pick. His walks give me a little pause, but in a bunch of 4 inning appearances I'd think he could do very well next year. It'll be a fun season (if we have one) watching young guys test themselves against the best of the best. Don't expect a world series run, but should have some fun stretches where the young guns are all dialed in for the same stretch and can provide some glimmer of hope for the future.

That's not really a reason why he won't stick. What about his pitches, performance, mechanics, etc. lead you to believe he can't get major league hitters out anymore? The hitters he faced in the show last year weren't MiLB hitters either. He faced the White Sox 5 times last year. In his 5th start against them he went 5.1 innings allowed 0 runs and won the game 1-0. So the best team in the division saw him 5 times and he was still able to slice them up his 5th time seeing them. That's at least a little sign of hope that he can be a #3-5 arm in a rotation is it not? Against the Sox last year he gave up 4 (ML debut), 5, 0, 3, and 0 earned runs. He actually got much better as the year went on and teams got tape on him. Certainly not suggesting he's going to have a 2.5 career ERA, but I don't get why it'd amaze you that people think Ober can stick. Over his last 10 starts he gave up 1, 3, 0, 2, 0, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1 earned runs while averaging 4.9 innings per start. He had a 3.31 ERA in what was essentially an average length start in terms of innings (average AL start last year was 5.0 innings). Seems rather reasonable to expect someone who dominated the minors, improved as his rookie year went on, and dominated the best team in the division as he faced them more to be able to stick in the majors.

You're again assuming they're spending to their limit now. Do you know that 40M wouldn't have just put them up to 45% of revenue being spent on payroll? Do you know they didn't just pocket an extra 40M in extra profit that they could've spent and still pocketed 100M (or whatever you or they find to be an acceptable profit for the year)? Why should I, as a fan, care if that 40M incremental spending would do a lot or a little for their revenue if they're pocketing 150M in profit each year? That's the argument the players are making. The teams are claiming they can't spend an extra 40M cuz they don't have it. They say they aren't making enough, or any, profit year over year. The players are calling them liars. I tend to agree with the players. If there was no profit in baseball billionaires would quit buying teams and running them like businesses. If the Twins stick at 90ish million for their payroll in 2022 I'm going to be pissed. Not because I think the extra 30 or 40M means they're going to win the world series, but because I don't watch the Twins or pay astronomical prices to go to games for the Pohlads to pocket an extra 30 to 40M each year. The Twins can spend in the 120-140 range with ease and the Pohlads still pocket 10s, if not 100s, of millions a year off them. I want an extra 40M spent to add 5 wins even if those 5 wins get the Twins to a 75 win record.

They're all raking in money and more than happy with the status quo. If they weren't they'd be the ones pushing for change. It annoys me to no end when Manfred gets up there and says the owners are fighting for more competitive balance and to attempt to stop tanking. JUST STOP TANKING! They control their teams. If they want to get rid of tanking just quit doing it. But that isn't their goal. Their goal is to make money. Which I get. Takes money to run a team. But quit acting like the players are the ones stopping you from not tanking. Just quit doing it.

I've given you an explanation a number of times. You are working on the assumption that low payroll teams are spending to their limits, and not just to make profits while spending far less than they could. I, and clearly the MLBPA, reject that assumption. I think the low payroll teams could spend significantly more if they chose to, or were forced to. Raising the CBT would allow the big boys to have an even wider advantage at first, yes. But those low spending teams would adjust how they run their teams. Where people truly differ from you is the idea that the gap in parity is one of need and not one of profit driven greed by a subset of owners who are happy to deposit their revenue sharing checks directly into their bank accounts and not into the product on the field. I'm a proponent of a hard cap and floor as that forces teams to spend. Players aren't because it caps the top of the market salaries. Owners aren't because it forces them to open their books. But beyond that the best way to get the tanking teams to quit tanking is to make it less profitable to tank. Or preferably to make it not at all profitable to tank. As a Twins fan I don't want the rules changed to pander to the Pohlads and their pocket book padding. While the rules are in place I want them to use the best strategy possible within those rules to try to build a sustainable winner. But when it comes to the CBA I want it to force the Pohlads (and every owner) to be competitive and try to win. I realize that won't happen because they're mostly business people trying to make a profit, but it doesn't mean I think we should kill the competitive spirit of the owners who actually care about winning. So I say make it a bad business move to not try to win by letting the big boys go balls to the wall on trying to win. See how quickly the Pohlads are able to spend a little more when they can't be profitable without winning.

Them only sharing it with the league doesn't solve the problem of the players not trusting them and them being able to cry poor when they aren't. That's the entire problem. The players think the teams are making X but the league says they're making Y. A bottom CBT based off Y doesn't solve the problem of the players still wanting it based on X. If the teams won't open their books there's no way to execute your plan that actually changes the teams at the bottom being more competitive. And I don't see how your proposal is any different than a floor. If you're going to tax the people at the bottom it would act the exact same as the arbitrary floor. Telling Pittsburgh they have to spend 50% of revenue on the major league payroll still leads them to spending $X more than they normally would've on veterans like Simmons. I fail to see any difference. If you're forcing people to spend more than they want the problem remains the same. Unless, as I said before, you're assuming the low revenue teams are currently spending so little because they are truly making that much less. So the answer really becomes a floor and cap or you scrap all the CBT or revenue sharing rules and make the teams try to be competitive every year to earn their fan's money. If revenue sharing is going to be a thing you need a floor and cap if you want to force more competition. Just a cap does nothing. As we've seen since it's been implemented. I'd also bet that if you put any sort of floor in and forced Pittsburgh to spend the extra 35M they'd change the strategy for rebuilding. Teams rebuild this way because they can make a ton of money by convincing their fans this is the best way to do it. The reality is they've got a bunch of real smart people who dig through the CBA with a fine tooth comb and find every way to take advantage of every rule. Change the rules and they'll change their strategy. Based on the current rules I have no desire for the Twins to trade prospects for major leaguers, but I do want them to spend to their normal levels. Building through the system being the best way to build for a team unable (unwilling?) to spend doesn't mean you can't spend on the major league team, too. Picks aren't why teams refuse to spend on payroll, money is. Nobody hits on enough high first round picks for it to be a great strategy for picks alone. Trading veterans for more prospects is part of tanking, but you have to get good veterans in order to trade them anyways which means you should pay some veterans to get the good ones. Teams don't spend because they don't want/have to. They have no motivation to put a better product on the field because they're guaranteed to make money either way. Take away their safety blanket. Change the rules. And they'll change how they build their teams.

My concern with that is that it leads to the same problems we have now of the teams saying they're broke and the players calling them liars. The owners are never going to open their books for anything less than a hard cap/floor situation and I don't know if they'd even do it then. Their ability to work in the grey areas of what constitutes baseball revenue and what doesn't is something I don't think they'd give up lightly.