chpettit19

I wouldn't rule out the Dodgers so easily. Corey Seager at 3B and Trea Turner at SS is going to be mighty tempting to them. Justin Turner is 36 and, while still productive, isn't going to be around forever. Add in the DH in the NL and being able to move Trea all around the field and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion at all that they aren't in on Seager, or another big name SS. And even if they don't sign one of the top 5 guys, they're smart enough to throw their name in the hat and raise the prices on those guys.

1. I'd shorten the season, but there's no way anyone would give up the money that comes with the 162 game schedule. 2. Definitely realign divisions (especially with universal DH) to promote more regional rivalries. 3. 15 second pitch clock. 4, Once tech is really figured out I'd have robo umps for sure. The strike zone is the strike zone, not what the ump feels like making it. (I also don't really believe in "pitch framing." That "stat" isn't really measuring what they say it is. It's just measuring how many times umps screw up.) 5. They're getting better at some loosening of video restrictions, but definitely need to get rid of blackouts and make it so their fans can see games. 6. Some sort of pick trading would be fun. If they're going back to 40 rounds I think they'd have to put some limits on it, but I like the idea of teams being able to move up if someone like Kumar Rocker starts falling a little like this year. 7. Don't know why anyone would be against this. 8. Commissioner is always going to be a puppet for the owners to be used to attempt to push more money into the owner's pockets and less into the player's. Never going to change. 9. I'd add a floor and cap for payrolls and have all media money pooled to allow every team to make the minimum and base the floor and cap on league revenues (50/50 split with players and owners like NFL).

Not sure those are realistic targets. Both those teams are bad, but the O's have refused to trade Trey Mancini for years and he's going to be 30 in his last year of control next year. Means has 3 years of control left and Gallen has 4. Those types of pitchers are rarely traded. Blake Snell was just traded with 3 years of an extension left, but you really don't see teams trade #2 pitchers with 3 arb years left, let alone someone like Gallen who will make about 700k next year then have 3 arb years (assuming new CBA doesn't change things a bunch). So I'd agree they're the types of guys the Twins should want they're not really realistic. Teams just don't trade those kinds of guys and both of those teams have said as recently as this year that they're not trading them.

I'm all for less government oversight, but that's not the argument here, the argument is that MLB operates like a government overseeing companies (the teams) and not like a company with different branches. Who pays for unemployment, child tax credits, etc.? Same argument. The entities under MLB's governance pay taxes to MLB who then kicks some back and uses the rest to pay their employees and maintain infrastructure. It's not a perfect analogy, but MLB is much more a government overseeing the teams than it is a company with branches, but yes, it does also have company-like traits. I don't know what the second paragraph is arguing against in terms of what I've been saying. I've never suggested a totally free market with no rules. I've said that arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries and argued that a salary floor and cap based on actual league revenues is what I'd like to say. So beyond that I don't have a response to that paragraph as it has nothing to do with anything I've suggested.

The "pitcher plays 33 games vs position player plays 150" idea has always been an interesting thought exercise for me. So I looked up some info (incredibly imperfect, but gets us some general info). I went with Thor and Javy Baez (I think he'll be cheapest SS thus most likely Twins target of the 5). Thor's best year he faced 825 batters (32 starts). Imperfect, but gives us an idea of how many "events" he impacted on the field. Baez's best year he had 645 PAs and 654 "chances" (PO + A + E) in the field. Imperfect, but gives us an idea of how many "events" he impacted on the field. So it's Thor 825 to Baez 1299. This is an imperfect way to measure this, but I think it gives us a frame of reference when debating pitcher vs position player impact. I think it shows how valuable/important shortstops are in that they impact so many plays on the field each year. In contrast Mike Trout has maxed out at 435 "chances." That's over 200 fewer opportunities to impact the game in the field. Obviously there's more factors like the positioning of other players (Buxton, for example, allows you to play your corners closer to the line) based on the range of your fielder, etc. but it's still an interesting look. And Trout had almost 700 PAs that year (he had 7.03 PAs+Chances/game in 2015, Baez had 8.11 in 2018). All this to say that I change my vote and signing one of the SSs would be my move. They just impact the game more. Again, with the caveat that the money makes sense.

Yeah, think we have to agree to disagree with fan engagement stuff. "What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time?" is a nice way for arbitration to work if it were based on current free market data. It isn't. It's based on data from when the system started. His years of service would mean absolutely nothing on a totally free market where teams didn't have control of the player. A player with his track record would be worth 20+ a year on the open market. Him making 5.6 isn't good just because he only made 4 something (guess, didn't look up his actual salary last year) last year. His "worth" is 20+. The government analogy is just an analogy. They're obviously not an actual government so the real government giving them an anti-trust exemption doesn't play into the analogy. They are a governing body that is put in place by their constituents that then agree to play under the rules they set forth in concert with the MLBPA. Separate teams can absolutely do what they wish under the rules provided by the governing body they've allowed to be in place. They can choose how much to spend, how to make hiring decisions, how many employees to hire, etc. It just all has to be done under the rules handed down by their governing body. MLB and MLBPA are 2 branches (or maybe parties is a better analogy?) of a government that was put in place by those they govern. I love that second to last sentence. Even though you're wrong, I appreciate the smack talk.

You need a business license from the United States government to compete against Amazon. Obviously MLB isn't actually a government, but that's how they act. They get to approve new teams just like the government in this, and every (I assume), country gets to approve new companies. I mean there's kids running lemonade stands in this country that have government officials (police usually) harass them about business licenses. Not sure the point of the last paragraph. Are you asking me to put a disclaimer on my post that says I recognize that the owners play a vital role in MLB games taking place? I didn't say I want them to get no money or lose money or anything, I said if I'm going to a game and paying those prices I want "much of that money going to the players." It goes the same way when saying I need to acknowledge the owners role, you need a disclaimer that without the players the owners aren't making any money to write those billions of dollars in checks every year. They need each other and fans need both.

First of all you haven't worn out your welcome and I don't think anyone is mad at you. We all come here for serious baseball talk so I think, even if we disagree, everyone here appreciates thoughtful discussion. As for your thoughts themselves, I couldn't disagree more with the idea that arbitration doesn't suppress salaries for basically every player. Beyond the idea that no players are "worth" their paychecks (that's a debate about capitalism and general economics of a free market), arbitration is absolutely suppressing salaries. If there was any world in which ticket, parking, concessions, tv package prices come down and we're all able to enjoy the game the way it used to be you could be on to something, but baseball is big business now. If I'm going to spend $50 on 1 ticket, plus $12 for 1 beer, and $8 for a hot dog I certainly want much of that money going to the people on the field I came to see, not the guys in the owner's box. And salaries don't "naturally rise in arbitration." They arbitrarily rise through arbitration. As for being employees of MLB vs teams. MLB is the government. The teams/owners/players have agreed to oversight. They have to pay their "taxes" to the league. They have agreed to allow MLB to "police" and "punish" them if they've been found guilty of the rules they've allowed the league to put in place. The teams are separate companies that then hire players. Yes, it's a different sort of hiring process than us normal folk go through, but that's the system they've allowed themselves to be governed by. And baseball isn't as popular now because MLB has been terrible at marketing and allowing access to it, and because it's too slow for the younger generations. It's the game itself that kids aren't interested in. Youth baseball is dying, and it's not because they don't know the guys on their MLB team. I'd argue kids these days know more about their team and every other team in the league than ever before because of the internet. But the game is too much standing around. Kids aren't interested in standing in left field for 20 minutes without getting a ball hit to them before going and sitting on the bench for 10 minutes without an AB that inning before going back to the outfield and not seeing a ball hit their way for 7 minutes then back to the bench to get 1 AB and sit down again. Society has changed and the game hasn't kept up. That's why baseball isn't as popular, not because fans don't know the guys on their team.

Like all these sorts of questions it depends on the money for each. Can they get Thor on a lower AAV for 3-5 years coming off an injury or is he looking for a 1 year deal (likely accepts the QO from the Mets in that case) or is he going to get someone to give him 20+ a year for 5+ years? I don't want him for 5+ years at 20+ per. Too many injury concerns and he wasn't great in 2019. But 3 years at 15-20? I'd take that. I think the Twins may have their eyes on someone like Baez as a SS signing. Great glove and hits the ball a mile. His K% and awful OBP may lower his price to something the Twins are willing to do. Get him for 5 or 6 years and plug him in as a Gold Glove SS and 25+ HR guy out of the 6 hole. He sounds like he may take a discount to play 2B in NY with his buddy Lindor, though. Beyond him I don't know that any of the other 4 SSs fall to the Twins price range. Assuming the money makes sense in whatever deal they'd sign in our hypothetical Thor vs SS scenario I guess I'd take Thor. Not a fan of Polanco at SS, but I think the team is better with him at SS and Thor on the mound next year than a big name SS and lesser pitcher. But would be good with either option, assuming the money makes sense. But I'm also a believer that Lewis makes his debut next year and is our future SS.

I'm with you. Just saying that if they go the cap route it would likely lead to the owners keeping less of the money. I assume they have some sort of legal way of ensuring the data that would be used for such a thing is real. I'm all for floor and cap, but don't think it'll ever happen. Both sides would rather see the league collapse than give in I think. Shoot, I want the floor and cap if only to put a stop to the "cheap Pohlads" comments every year and being able to have a debate about team building that doesn't include payroll complaints.

Caps in other leagues are determined by league revenues to ensure balance between owner and player money. That's why the players don't even want luxury tax limits. Baseball owners won't open their books and show the players what they're actually making. The numbers the owners throw out are 100% designed to allow them to take home more than the players. It's why the players should actually be fighting for a floor and cap (in my opinion) based on the actual money coming in. I believe the NFL's new deal is a 50/50 split of revenues. The players don't want the cap because they think it means the owners will spend a higher percent of the money on players, when really it just allows the teams to cry poor, spend less, and only pay the elite talent crazy amounts while building teams around elite prospects on league minimum deals without anyone ever really knowing how much money the teams are bringing in. The #1 goal of the MLBPA should be to get a deal that forces salaries to be based on actual numbers not just the owners word that this is all they can afford.

Well, only 13 teams won a World Series between 1903 and 1961. And the Yankees alone won 19. Giants won 5, Cards won 6. So in 57 World Series (there wasn't one in 1904) those 3 teams won over half the World Series. 19% of the teams in the league won 53% of World Series. 1 Team, 6% of teams, won 33% of the titles.

Some inaccurate information and analogies in here. 1. Arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries. You think Jose Berrios was only worth 5.6M this year? On the open market he more than triples that. And the owners won't open their books to show an arbitrator the actual data to base information on. That's why the owners want luxury tax limits, not a hard cap based on league revenues. 2. The only employees of MLB work for the league office (and MLB network, etc.). We'll stick with Berrios here, but he isn't an MLB employee, he was a Twins employee and now he's a Blue Jays employee. Maybe this post is trying to say that all players should be employees of MLB, but it doesn't read that way. It reads as if you're saying they're currently employees of MLB, and they aren't. They're employed by individual teams. Each team is it's own company. I understand your desire to have players you can get to know and stick around for entire careers, but that wouldn't be "for the good of the game" like you think it would be. Modern day free agency started in 1976, if I'm not mistaken. Between 1903 and 1976 there were 16 different teams that won the World Series. 16 different teams in 72 seasons. From 1976 through 2020 there have been 23 different teams that have won the World Series. Now there's been some expansion in there ('77 added the Blue Jays and Mariners, '93 Rockies and Marlins, '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) so that's a factor, but 23 teams in 44 seasons is a way better number than 16 in 72 (even assuming all 6 of those expansion teams won 1 WS before '76 that'd still just be 22 teams in 72 years). I grant my quick counting may have those numbers off slightly, but the point is the same, there's far more competitive balance now than there was before free agency. And the salaries are much higher, as they should be. The prices for our TV packages, tickets, parking, concessions, etc. aren't going down. Forced arbitration would suppress salaries for the players (owners are never opening their books, even for an arbitrator, so the salaries wouldn't be based on any real numbers) while fans pay ever increasing prices and owners make insane amounts of money. So, again, I get your desire to have players that stick around, but your suggestion isn't for the betterment of the game. Based on your statement that you've seen both sides of the free agency line for significant time I can only assume you're older than the average fan. There's certainly a lot of player movement these days, and that makes it really hard for people who only follow their team. But with technology these days the idea is that fans follow the sport, and league, as a whole now so having Nelson Cruz join your team isn't a completely unknown player, but someone you've known about for years and will just get to know better now as you cheer for him on your team instead of against him on another.

My understanding of most floor/cap situations in sports is that it's based on league revenue. MLB owners are really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really against opening their books and showing what they're actually making. This current proposal has no shot of getting MLBPA approval. Anything that lowers the tax threshold is not getting accepted. The MLBPA wants nothing to do with a cap and are already mad about teams using the current system as a cap. They want a floor with no ceiling. Neither MLB nor the MLBPA care about the game or fans. Their negotiations are strictly financial and both sides are looking for ways to get the biggest piece of the pie they can. I think it gets ugly, but the fact that they're throwing around these kinds of ideas at least provides a pinhole of light in the great darkness that has been this season as a Twins fan.

The Athletic is reporting MLB gave their first proposal to the MLBPA on team spending rules. Dropping luxury tax threshold to $180M and implementing a $100M payroll floor. Obviously very early on and nothing at all is even close to set, but if this is the starting point, and something being discussed, I have hope that this new CBA will address some real competitive balance issues in the league.

That's a great catch at 3rd.

I certainly can't imagine why the media wouldn't ask him about that lineup, but also can't imagine him giving a great answer to it either. Yeah, I was thinking it was maybe something about Kepler being more comfortable there, or changing his approach cuz he's in that spot to try to snap him out of things, but even with the changes to how the game is played, I don't get it. Would love to hear what the thought process is in Rocco's lineups.

I may have missed this in another thread somewhere, but has Rocco explained the reasoning behind Kepler in the leadoff spot and Arraez hitting 4/5?

That could be, I just don't remember hearing anything about Garlick lately so couldn't remember what his deal is. And, agreed, I think Rogers goes on the 60 day if/when they need to add someone.

I believe Dobnak and Smeltzer are both working their way back from the 60-day in the next couple weeks. I wouldn't mind seeing Smeltzer DFA'd, but my guess would be the Twins don't plan to cut him loose as soon as he comes off the IL. I'd prefer to see Moran and Miranda getting some ML time, but my guess is the Twins would fill Farrell and Law's 40-man spots with Dobnak and Smeltzer first. I also believe Farrell has started throwing bullpen sessions on his way back so I don't know that they'd be looking to send him to the 60-day at this time. I don't know what Garlick, Stashak, and Colina are looking at in terms of getting off the 60-day this season, but the only one I've seen is for sure not coming back is Kirilloff. That means they're looking at 2-5 guys on the 60-day that will need to be added back to the 40-man or DFA'd in the coming weeks to month. Although, I think Rogers is a relatively easy add to the 60 day. Not sure why they'd bring him back for just a couple weeks this season.

I guess my question with this line of thinking is why would other teams value him if the Twins shouldn't? That's why I'd consider this a sell low point. Every other org has the same data the Twins do on his struggles at the plate in 2019, followed by a huge AZ league showing, no 2020 season, and missing 2021 with the blown out knee. If that makes you think he isn't worth much now, why would a major league org look at him as the centerpiece of a deal to bring back legit pitching to the Twins?

I'm interested to see what Larnach's approach looks like in 2022. He was a left-center gap hitter his whole amateur career so I was surprised to see him looking to pull so much at the major league level. Will he come back next year looking as pull happy as he did this year, or be back to using the left-center gap and being a little more hit over power? From all the reports I've read he spent all last year working on being able to pull the ball for power so I wonder if the early promotion got him locked into that swing without the chance to take the next step of having both his opposite field approach while being able to turn on pitches inside.

If it's a hypothetical question of giving up Lewis for 1 of the top free agents then, yes, I'd "trade" Lewis for the guys on that list. I don't, however, see a reason to give up Lewis as a separate transaction simply because SS is claimed at the ML level. As Dman and Otto point out, Lewis' versatility makes him very useful (assuming he hits) to have on the roster. Even if we keep Buxton as well. We know there's a solid chance we'll need a CF replacement throughout any season, so having another guy with elite speed to fill that hole would be nice. And if Buxton leaves then I think Lewis is starting in CF opening day 2023.

According to baseball savant, Buxton is only the 7th fastest guy in baseball now. Getting slow in his old age.

It blows my mind that people are on here suggesting Brent Rooker has a future in any outfield anywhere. He may be the worst defensive outfielder in major league baseball right now. He's awful. Yes, he made a terrific catch the other night, but, overall, he will give up far more hits than he prevents. As for diving catches, if 1 player can run 50 feet and catch a ball while still on his feet while another player runs 20 feet for a ball hit with the same speed and loft and has to dive for it, the player who could cover 50 feet on his feet is drastically better than the player who dove to catch the ball. That catch was fun to see, but Rooker is awful.