chpettit19

Why? Because you believe that's where his market will be?

The MiLB players are not part of the union and their salaries cannot be negotiated. That is the entire point here. You're taking away the 1 piece of minor league pay that the MLBPA can influence, the singing bonus system. You've also suggested never giving up the 6th year of team control which is another way the owners get away with paying young players very little (compared to their older peers). There's no point in discussing what the minor league pay (beyond the bonus money) should look like coming out of this CBA because this CBA cannot, and will not, have anything in it about MiLB pay. It simply won't. Bonus pool money can be negotiated because it's part of the MLB draft before the players are assigned to minor league teams where the MLBPA no longer has say in what they're paid. It's that simple. The MLBPA simply cannot negotiate a deal that forces the owners to pay minor leaguers better salaries. It's impossible. They can't do it. So at that point you're taking away large bonuses and hoping the owners will pay better for no reason at all other than they're good hearted people who want to pay players what they're worth. And I don't think anyone disagree that that is not how the owners work.

You're right. They haven't. But that's kind of the point. The MLBPA has no say in anything that has to do with the minor leaguers beyond the draft. The minor leaguers are not union members. The only thing the MLB players can do for minor leaguers is get them bonuses as draft picks. And you want to get rid of that. Not sure what you want me to try again. Be mad that the MLBPA isn't negotiating things out of their control? Seems like a weird thing to be mad at the players for.

Why do you think the owners would take the savings from not paying big bonuses and put it towards minor league salaries? Minor leaguers don't have a union. The CBA doesn't dictate minor league pay. It does dictate the MLB draft signing bonuses, though. Those bonuses are the only reason any of the minor leaguers have any money at all. The owners would pocket that money and laugh all the way to the bank.

The players are not just employees like you and me. The players are also the product. The fans are paying for the players. That's the product we're buying. I think that changes the equation quite a bit.

Steve Cohen bought the Mets for $2.475 billion. The Guggenheim Group paid $2.15 billion for the Dodgers in 2012. The Mariners were bought for $1.3 billion in 2016. Jeter and his group paid $1.2 billion for the Marlins. John Sherman and his group bought the Royals for $1 billion in 2020. I agree with the general idea of you post, but there have been multiple MLB teams purchased for over a billion.

I certainly took some liberties and exaggerated, but I strongly disagree that the machine is just too big. In the sense that the league will likely be around for all of our lifetimes, sure, but in the sense that it'll be what it is now? I don't think so. Attendance numbers have been going down for 15 years. World Series viewership has been tanking. Viewership overall is going down, and has been for years. They just lost almost an entire season to covid and saw people change their viewing habits. If they lose games this season, or come out with minor leaguers, I don't know that they ever recover. Participation in youth baseball has been declining. Now you have the superstars of the sport staying home to watch a bunch of guys the kids have never heard of? I don't think the sport recovers from any missed games, or Chief's suggestion of using minor leaguers. The level of baseball being played would be so far below what the average fan expects of major leaguers they'd lose many of the ones that they didn't lose to the greed of millionaires and billionaires right at the jump. I think the league is in real trouble of remaining even 3rd on the list of American sports leagues. Everyone involved with major league baseball wants to keep seeing their pocket books get bigger. I have real concerns that they don't understand what happens if they screw this up and their collective greed causes problems with the 2022 season. Will we still have MLB if this goes into next year or we get replacement players? Sure. Will it be a $10B a year industry? I don't think so. Baseball is dying already and at this point it appears they're trying to help the process along. This line of discussion began with Chief suggesting the owners break the union and replace them with minor leaguers if need be. My stance is that that doesn't help the owners, the players, or the fans. I think it kills the league as we know it. I also think missing games kills the league as we know it. I'm certainly not educated enough on everything to have such a strong stance, but just looking at the direction the viewership/attendance has been going and adding on top a lockout or strike going into the year and I just don't see that baseball bounces back like those involved in the negotiations seem to think it will.

Disagree. If they sign a SS for a long term deal (5 or 6 years for Story is my desire) it's not silly at all. Paying one big money for 1 year may be silly as they wouldn't be able to supplement the rotation well enough this year most likely. But adding an All Star SS for 5 or 6 years is never silly. Why would you not add talent if you can? Donaldson, Sano, Rogers, Duffey are all off the payroll soon. They'll be looking to have their young pitchers take multiple spots in the pen and rotation for the next handful of years. That means they'll open more money to spend on pitching over the next couple years and they can go after FAs then, too. If it's 2022 or bust that's 1 thing, but no FO should be operating that way. What we have now is a AAA shortstop at best. Maybe some good prospects, but definitely unproven. Their pitching is bad, but the hole at SS is gaping as well. Don't understand the argument that filling a huge need is ever silly. Unless you're sold on Lewis being as good as Story (or Correa if we're really dreaming) for the next 5 or 6 years, why is it silly to fill that hole now and not have to worry about filling that next year when they'll likely still have some pitching holes to fill, too.

Why aren't the minor league stadiums gigantic and full of 40,000 fans paying 60+ bucks a ticket and $12 for a beer and $8 for a hot dog? Is it because the product isn't the same? The owners absolutely want nothing to do with getting rid of roughly 1200 of the best players on the planet. I've worked in baseball for years, I've paid for MLB.tv for a decade despite living in the Twins market because I watch as many games as I can, and I've been a Twins season ticket holder. I won't watch another major league game for the rest of my life if they "broke" the union and just went to minor leaguers because their 57% share of $10B in revenue wasn't enough. If someone as diehard and dedicated to the game as I am would walk away you don't think a large chunk of the average fans would? They're already losing fans and you want them to drop the 1200 best players and think that wouldn't kill the sport? I promise you the best 1200 minor leaguers right now are not what "will constitute MLB" in the future. There's a reason minor league stadiums are a fraction of the size as major league stadiums and their prices are a fraction as big. And even with the players giving in and giving up even more of the revenue, why would I want that? Why would any fan want the billionaire owners to get more than 60% of the revenues? You think that helps with the competitive balance in baseball? I don't know how else to say it than this has nothing to do with the game of baseball. It is 100% about who gets to take home how much money. The owners aren't on your side. They never have been and never will be. They care about competitive balance as much as it increases their bottom line. And clearly that isn't much. Neither side cares about the fans. Neither side cares about the game. This is, and always will be, a fight over money and how much each side is able to pull away from the other. That is the only thing they're fighting about and none of them care about competitive balance or a fair game. Look at the constant cheating done all over the sport and realize the players don't care. Look at the tanking owners do every year and realize the owners don't care. None of them care about us, but at least the players entertain us.

Rockies hitters are certainly more complicated to evaluate, but home/road splits aren't as big of a concern these days as the challenges of hitting on the road being just as extreme as the advantages of hitting in Colorado are better understood. You'd certainly prefer as small of splits as possible, but generally speaking most guys who put up good numbers for the Rockies are expected to put up good numbers for other teams. Matt Holliday, Nolan Arenado, Larry Walker, DJ LeMahieu, etc. Superstars in Colorado tend to be at least All Stars elsewhere.

They weren't happy about it, but the comment I was replying to said the players would immediately cave to the owners once they started missing checks and the owners were using minor leaguers instead. The players don't want to miss checks, and missed games would be awful, but the players aren't going to cave because they miss checks.

Those pampered crybabies were ok missing quite a few paychecks in 94 and 95. The MLBPA has been stockpiling money for years to prepare for this fight. They're not just going to crumble after a few missed checks. Starting with minor leaguers costs the league fans and money as fans won't pay the ridiculous prices to watch that product. Not sure how this would help the game at all. The owners couldn't care less about the game being more competitive top to bottom. As long as the value of their franchises continue to rise many owners have no cares about that. Manfred isn't paid to improve the game or make it more competitive, he's paid to make the owners as much money as possible. Make no mistake, that is all these negotiations are. The owners trying to keep as much money as possible while the players try to claw back whatever they can. And a neutered players union and slashed contracts just leads to the elite athletes choosing other sports over baseball and the quality of the product going down which then hurts the owner's bottom lines as their tv contracts shrink and fans stop showing up. The pampered cry baby billionaires could just pay 50% of revenues to players and make this all go away. Most reports I've seen give them a 57-43% advantage in revenue split. Agree to open their books and give the players a 50/50 split and watch the competition balance out and avoid bad press all at the same time.

I'm with @tony&rodney, it all comes back to the budget. I think the Twins are right around $90M right now. Maybe $95. Either way they absolutely should have 30+ mil left to spend. To me it's either Rodon on a 2 year, pretty high AAV deal, or it's Story. I think Pineda and a trade or 2 should be expected at this point (not expected as in I'm predicting it, but as a fan base we should expect ownership and FO to be planning to make those moves to improve). So the question to me comes down to are you giving Rodon 20 a year for a year or 2, or are you giving Story 20 a year for 5 or 6 years. To me those are the only 2 players that fit the Twins needs and are worth a big deal. They waited out the market like they always do and now they have 2 options left. My pick would be Story to lock up the middle of the field. I'd offer him 5/100 and be willing to do 6/120 the second the lockout ends (well I would've tried to sign him to that before the lockout started).

Chris Taylor signed back with the Dodgers last night for 4 years, 60 mil.

I think evaluating Rocco is really hard. I think people underestimate how much input the FO has on the way he manages. I believe it was on The Athletic, but there was an article talking about the late Mike Bell and having a bench coach in general. There was an interesting part in it where they talked about Rocco not having his right hand man to be in the clubhouse and be able to put out small fires. They talked about how it was even worse happening in this season because he spent so much time in his office with the FO people figuring out how to get the season back on track and pitching plans, etc. I don't think its crazy that a bench coach is so important. I know many fans have a problem with him managing "by the numbers" so much and want someone different for that reason. This FO is never going to hire a La Russa. If your complaint is "laptop managing" you're going to be mad about any manager brought in by this FO. They will always bring in someone who manages that way as it's how they build their team and believe a team wins. I think Rocco is a fine manager. Doesn't change the Wins and Loses at the end of the year really (I don't think there's any manager that really changes performance that much). I don't like the "it's his fault the team is bad at fundamentals" argument either. If millionaire athletes can't do what they're paid to do it's on them, not the manager. The Twins have been a pretty veteran team during his time here. I think it's reasonable that he expects veterans to have their routines down and be ready to perform without him having to hold their hands. If he has to hold their hands they're the wrong players to have on the team. It made sense he required BP and infield/outfield work for young players as the season transitioned last year. To me that's a sign of a good 2021 manager. Managing, coaching, whatever athletes in 2021 isn't a yell and scream situation. It's just not done that way anymore. So I think Rocco does fine. Wouldn't be upset if he's on the hot seat in 2022, but also don't think it's crazy if he isn't.

Get him to stop jumping from 10 feet away and landing on first with his full weight driving his nearly full body weight onto his hip. That hip injury last year looked super preventable. I know his speed and beating out infield hits is a huge part of his game, but it hurt me just watching him jump and land on the base over and over. Of course that wore on his hip.

Not much to see here. Feels like a nothing offseason move. Just like signing Cave to that deal didn't mean anything, picking up Megill really doesn't either. He's likely pretty close to the top of the list of DFA's as they look to bring in different players. I'm glad Twins territory can sleep well tonight knowing the Cave situation played out in a pretty predictable way and he wasn't earmarked as the starting CFer and 3 hole hitter. Said much ado about nothing when they signed Cave and I'll say it again now about Megill. These are dime a dozen moves that happen constantly. 40-man is still nowhere near set and Megill is no more guaranteed to be on it come spring training than Cave was a week ago. Megill is interesting, though. I'm also guess Wes tells him to drop a breaking ball and start throwing the other one about 50% of the time.

They're in a spot where they could certainly afford a 2 year deal with AAV for an arm. They should have plenty of guys on minimum deals the next 2 years as the prospects start arriving. So I wouldn't be overly upset with that. I can't say I'm super against them not giving out 5+ year deals to pitchers. Most of those deals are for high AAV (not many guys signing Dobnak style deals) and I just don't think that risk is worth it for a team with the Twins spending limitations (self inflicted or not they don't spend). If Falvine has built the pitching pipeline we all hope they have they and can become a Cleveland style pitching factory they should be able to contend for years as they can afford an offense to go along with that pitching, unlike Cleveland. To me the answer is always going to be developing pitching. If they can't do that there aren't enough short-term, high AAV contracts they can sign. But I'd be good with one this offseason to provide some stability.

I'd do 1/20 or 1+an option/20, but I wouldn't go further than that. I wouldn't go into meltdown mode and call for the FO to be fired, but I'd call 3/60 a mistake. I'd call Rodon and offer him a Thor style 1/21 deal and he may be interested in that, but I wouldn't guarantee him multiple years at 20.

Top Gunn said "a secondary signing like Jon Gray" so I'm pretty sure they meant Jon, not Sonny. Rodon is an interesting case. More risk than I'd be willing to give 20M to. Not just because of the injuries (both elbow and shoulder injuries throughout his career is very concerning, though), but also because he's had 1 serious outlier of a season. He wasn't claimed last year because he wasn't worth claiming, but now you want to give him 20M a year for multiple years? No thanks. Gausman just got 22 a year after much more sustained success. Descalfini got 3 years 36M. He's a little older, but has had multiple above average seasons, unlike Rodon. Jon Gray got 4 years 56M and has also had more above average seasons than Rodon. ERod got 5/77. Verlander, Thor, Gausman, and Morton are the only guys to get 20M a year so far. Those were for 1+an option, 1, 5, and 1 years. All of them have far more established success than Rodon. He's exactly the type of pitcher I'd sit back and see how the market plays out and snag him late if he's trying to get 3/60 now. If he'd do 3/45 I'd take that, but not 3/60. Can't be afraid of any risk at all, but also can't ignore risk and pretend it doesn't matter. The Twins have enough high injury risk players on their team and in their system. Don't pay 20M a year to add another one who's only had 1 above average season.

If you're planning on looking into possibly buying a new car in the near future would you not do an oil change or get the brakes fixed on your current car before you actually get the new one? My stance is that it's reasonable to believe they signed Jake Cave to a barely above league minimum contract at this point in time as an insurance policy. They wanted him in their back pocket just in case. As I said in an earlier post here, I don't think any fan on here thinks the 40 guys on the 40-man roster right now are going to be the 40 guys on the roster at the start of the season. So why have any of them? Why not just cut everyone they plan to look for upgrades for? They weren't going to offer him arbitration. They weren't going to pay him over $1M like he would've gotten in arbitration. They likely went to him and said he wasn't getting arbitration and gave him the offer to sign for 800k. Why wait until Dec 1 to do all that? What's it matter? I'm not even saying you're wrong and that they don't plan to have him as their 4th OFer come game 1, but the suggestion that it's super obvious, and only explanation to things seems far fetched. 800K simply isn't going to stop them from cutting him. It isn't. There is no reason to believe they won't even consider upgrading their 4th OFer spot right now beyond animus (not even saying the ill will is undeserved) for the FO. I don't like Cave. I don't want him on the roster. I'll be upset if they have such an awful offseason that he has a role on the 2022 Twins. But none of that means it's impossible, or even unrealistic, that the Twins cut him before ST even starts. Them signing him as an 800k insurance policy simply isn't the clear cut, he's on the opening day roster move you, and others, seem to be suggesting it is. There's 4 months and a new CBA between now and game 1. This (hopefully) is far from the final 40-man. That's all I'm saying.

You may be correct. They may have no intention of bringing in anyone else and have no intention of even looking at other OF options on the trade or FA markets. Or maybe it's just Thanksgiving and they have 4 more months to make moves? Maybe they are like everyone else who pays attention to baseball and are quite certain there will be a lockout starting Dec 2 and they will have far less time to make moves after the lockout and before ST/the regular season so they locked someone up just so they know they have someone before the chaos ensues in case they aren't able to find an upgrade to their backup OF position. I'm not missing any forests or trees. I've said the entire time that I wouldn't have signed Cave, but him being on the roster hasn't cost them anything yet and he's far from guaranteed a spot on the opening day roster. It's a pretty reasonable stance. Suggesting there's no chance he's cut feels like a more unreasonable stance to me. I'm not saying anyone should be happy with the deal or having him still on the roster. I'm not happy with it. But the idea that a 1 year deal for less than $1 million makes him some sure thing, can't cut asset the Twins would never ever replace feels far more like just animus for the FO than an unbiased, reasonable take on the situation at the beginning of the off season.

I agree I don't think he's good enough and he shouldn't have been resigned, but I'm struggling to see what opportunity costs there are right now in having him on the 40-man. To this point in the off season the only thing it's cost them is their 7th best Rule 5 eligible prospect, right? Cave on the 40-man hasn't stopped them from doing anything to this point beyond protecting whoever they had as 7th on that list. That's not nothing, but let's not make it out to be more than it is. My point is that Cave on a 1 yr 800k deal shouldn't stop the Twins from doing anything they want to do this off season. I don't get their comfort with him either, beyond him being somewhat capable in CF while most of their OFers are corner only. I don't like that they gave him the deal, and I wouldn't have done it, but I'm just saying people should pump the brakes as all it's done to this point is fill a 40-man spot that could've gone to their 7th best Rule 5 prospect. I'm a prospect lover, but even I realize if you have 7 guys capable of being picked in the Rule 5 and sticking on a ML roster you've got much bigger problems with how you're running your system. Maybe that's what people are mad about, but it's not what I'm seeing.

I didn't mean you personally were overly angry or anything, sorry if it came off that way. I'm just saying there seems to be a general theme that this 1 year 800K deal is a bigger deal than I think it is. As of 11/23/21 I'd say Cave would be the 4th OFer for the Twins based on the current 40 man roster. My point is simply that it's 11/23/21 and there's a whole lot more time to sign and trade for more talent and 1 year, 800K isn't going to stop the Twins from releasing Cave and not thinking twice. If people think the Twins are now actively not going to look for upgrades because they're so enamored with Cave that's 1 thing, but signing someone they're comfortable with to a barely more than league minimum 1 year deal is no clear sign to me that he's locked into the #4 spot. To me this was an 800k insurance policy as they believe Cave is capable of manning CF as the 4th OFer while nobody else on the roster is. Had Cave been set on going to arbitration and refused to sign this deal my guess is he'd have been released, but he agreed to a minuscule (in MLB contract terms) deal with a hope and a prayer that the Twins can't upgrade and he'll make the opening day roster. To me there's no sign whatsoever that the Twins have their 4th OFer in place and aren't going to look to upgrade. Don't like Cave and definitely don't want him as the 4th OFer, but I don't see the big deal with retaining your best fielding 4th OFer just in case you miss on your other targets over the offseason. It's just an 800K insurance policy as far as I'm concerned.

I'm still completely confused as to the idea of a grievance being filed by a player who gets cut. Especially an 800K player. Do you have any examples of this happening? I am just not seeing the idea that Cave is somehow uncuttable because he signed a 1 year, 800K deal. This FO has done some things I don't understand, and I don't understand giving Cave this contract to start with, but I just don't think it's cause for great concern yet. We're not even to Thanksgiving yet and people are acting like Cave has been named the starting CFer and 3 hole hitter. All I'm saying is it feels like more anger than there needs to be just yet. Free agency just started. Lets give it a month before we start freaking out.