chpettit19

The players are very against a salary cap situation as they don't want to see the top end salaries go away. They believed agreeing to any kind of revenue split would be a gateway to the league pushing for a cap in these CBA negotiations. That's my understanding at least.

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 have no reason to feel this way, but it feels to me like we're in for a long winter and the collective greed of the out of touch cry baby millionaires and billionaires is going to put another nail in baseball's coffin. And there aren't many nails left before that coffin is locked up tight. Scherzer signing that deal the same day he comes out and says he won't sign any deal that doesn't get younger players paid more and sooner just doesn't feel like an executive committee member who has reasonable expectations. The owners not being willing to give up 1 year of team control doesn't feel like an ownership group with reasonable expectations. I know they're all still posturing and putting out their public statements to discredit the other side and pump up theirs, but they feel really far apart. I have no real reason to believe that, just feels that way.

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.

Are we sure the players and owners truly understand they can't afford missed games?

My favorite teams being good certainly helps things! I'm more into the game themselves, and the theories/strategies to team building/management/in game strategy than specific teams so I pay attention more than most. That may just be my trauma response to being a MN sports team, though. Actually, it's 100% a response to being a MN sports fan. My understanding is the MLBPA has been building a pool of money for years now in preparation for lost games this year to be able to help support players if they weren't getting paychecks. Once the regular season gets into view and the players can threaten a strike of their own they get a little leverage back. I'm guessing we see no real movement until January or February.

If it goes significantly into the season I'm quite sure my habits will change and I'll stop putting aside any time to watch baseball. If it's on and I'm not doing anything I'll turn it on, but I wouldn't follow it like I do now by any means. 2020 already changed my habits some and I watched fewer games this year than ever. If they come out of this with systems in place to better balance the competition in the game and give every team a better chance at sustained success (not just a 3-5 year window if you get a wave of prospects that all succeed) I'd be more likely to come back even with missed games. I've worked in baseball and have had an MLB.tv account for years. But the changes to the game (3 true outcomes, it feeling like a minute between each pitch, etc.) have made it less entertaining, the shortened season provided me a natural chance to get into other hobbies during the summer months, and possible missed games while billionaires argue with millionaires it'd be hard for me to come back on any sort of dedicated regularity.

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.

I give them a lot of credit for not bottoming out for more seasons. I'm not saying they shouldn't have signed the deals. In fact I've said it's good for baseball that they signed these deals. I just don't think it makes them competitors. My point is exactly that incomplete rosters fail even with big time FA signings. Padres "win" the offseason all the time and they still aren't making the playoffs because, before recently, their rosters didn't fit. This Rangers roster doesn't feel like it fits. The point I'm making with ARod, Pujols, Hamilton, etc. is that it takes far more than signing a couple big name guys to turn a 100 loss team into a contender. This feels like spending to spend. Their top position prospect is a 3B. Seager has a few years left at SS, but he's moving to 3B. Semien has a couple years left at 2B and he's likely going to be below average defensively. Gray's a really nice #3, maybe #2, but they have no other arms. Garcia had a really nice year last year, but he's 28 and we'll see how sustainable that is. I like that they didn't wait for all the other pieces to be in place before trying to find an expensive FA to fit specific holes. I just don't think these signings make them a drastically better team as I don't think the pieces fit well over the next few years even. I like that they signed guys and are done tanking, apparently. I'm just saying I don't think these specific signings were the best use of half a billion dollars.

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.

Walls looks like another glove only player. Not bad as your backup infielder as he can play any position and brings a great glove, but I don't like glove only starters. He feels like an Ehire type guy. Same with Kiner-Falefa. Good players to have, but not what I'd call starter quality players on a contender. As far as a trade is concerned, I'd prefer to move someone already on the 40 man since it's full and bringing him in means you're trading a prospect to get him plus have to put someone on waivers and risk losing them. I'd prefer to see if they'd take a Twins bench guy (Cave?) for their bench guy. Edit: Just saw Cave was outrighted so I take back my suggestion of trading him for Walls.

Well now I feel even better about Miranda and Arraez both getting ABs next year! I hadn't looked at any numbers so thanks for that info!

No problem trading Arraez (well he's my favorite Twin right now so I'd be bummed), but I don't want Kiner-Falefa. As others have said, I'd much prefer if they move Arraez it's for pitching. With an open DH spot, how much Baldelli and the FO like to rotate and sit players, and the injuries that will happen I'm not that worried about getting Arraez and Miranda ABs. It won't be 500 ABs each, but it'll be a bunch. I'm just not a fan of glove only players in the 3 true outcome era of the game. Defense will always be important, but it's not as important as it used to be, and I don't really see any reason to believe K-F will improve his hitting. He's been pretty darn consistent. He basically is who he is at this point. And that's a poor man's Andrelton Simmons (in his prime). Singles hitting, no power SS with a good glove. But K-F isn't Simmons in his prime with the glove. Solid backup infielder is all I see. Not trading a starting quality IFer for a backup quality IFer when the team has much bigger needs and can fill the SS hole with a cheap FA signing if they're not going with Correa or Story at this point.

Not interested in this at all. Kiner-Falefa is a tremendous fielder, but he's an awful hitter. Not saying to ignore SS defense completely, but Arraez put up the same WAR last year as IKF in 30 fewer games. I don't want any defense only players in the current game. So in a straight up trade I'd be very upset if the Twins did this.

I'm with Bonnes, this feels premature. I'm not saying teams should wait until they have a bunch of young players ready to contend then go trying to spend, but they now have 2 stud middle infield bats and nothing else. Well Garcia looked good last year so they have 3 bats and nothing else? Gray is good, but he's not an ace and the rest of their staff is just as bad as the Twins, but I'm not aware of a stable of arms ready to contribute. They're not the yanks or dodgers. They aren't going to blow past the luxury tax. This feels a lot like the Arod deal when they went and got him then had to trade him 3 years later after they won 73, 72, and 71 games. Or maybe the Angels with Trout, Hamilton, and Pujols is a better, more recent example. I'm certainly not saying teams shouldn't spend. It's way better for the sport to have teams like the Rangers out there taking a swing, but I'm not going to put money on them in 2022. Padres and Rangers making these splashes is good for the game, but isn't great for their teams getting Ws.

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.

Bad pitching is still bad pitching. That will never change. But the role starters play in MLB has changed drastically over the last 5+ years. And the Twins are talking about possibly being even more dramatic with their approach to pitching in 2022. I mean if you want to get into it, the quote is actually "momentum is only as good as the next day's starter" and it was Jim Leyland quoting Earl Weaver back in 1985. In 1985 Bert Blyleven lead the AL in innings pitched at 293. In 2021 Robbie Ray lead the AL in innings pitched at 193. Oakland had their starters throw 892 innings in 2021. That lead the league in 2021. That is good for the 828th most innings by starters since 1985. Out of 1068 team seasons. Houston was second at 878 innings good for 877 out of 1068. If you take out the 86 team seasons from the 94, 95, and 2020 strike and covid shortened seasons there were only 982 team seasons. So the team with the absolute most innings pitched by starters in 2021 was good for 828th out of 982 seasons. All I'm saying is the game isn't played the same and starters don't matter like they used to. Especially in the playoffs. Which was brought up in the debate (difference between 162 and the playoffs). Teams are smarter and more creative and can find their way around a bad starter. The quote isn't as relevant anymore.

The debaters coming at things from 2 different perspectives lead to some good conclusions. And people in the thread have added to it. There's a big difference between the regular season and playoff pitching staffs. To the point that Roger's quote of TK is now less relevant than anytime in the history of the sport. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I know the Astros were averaging about 3 innings a game from their starters for most of the postseason. And that wasn't because they were using relievers as starters. They were using their regular starters and still couldn't get through 4 innings, yet almost won the World Series. Front offices have realized you need 25 arms to get you through 162, but then you need 6 or 7 to get you through the postseason. Those aren't exact numbers, but with extra off days in the playoffs you can use your elite bullpen arms every game so don't need a full 13 man staff. I voted that building a strong offense is more important because you need both pitching and hitting to survive 162 games (ask Jacob deGrom how elite pitching with no hitting goes for winning games), but you can scheme your way to good pitching in the playoffs when you can get away with using so few guys. Or you can be Dave Roberts and scheme your way out of elite pitching by using your elite starters as relievers, but that also goes to show that you can use strategy to affect your pitching outcomes in the postseason. But if you have a Brewers-esque lineup of guys who just aren't that good of hitters you can't scheme your way to better results so easily.

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.