Cap'n Piranha

True. Perhaps that's why I included that caveat... Twice.

For what it's worth, here are Great Lakes' offensive rankings in the High A Central league/Midwest League (same league as the Twins High A affiliate Cedar Rapids), with 2021 first and 2019 second AVG--2nd (3rd) OBP--2nd (1st) SLG--1st (2nd) OPS--1st (1st) BB--5th (1st) SO--2nd highest (4th highest) Without having done any research on roster makeup (that is, were there a ton of studs in 2019, and none in 2021) color me pretty unimpressed. Seems like he made moderate improvements at best, with real regression in a couple of areas. If this is simply because the Dodgers have implemented a fantastic system that works, and this is the Twins essentially stealing the blueprint, then I'm good with that. However, on the surface, this looks to me like thinking the Dodgers have an assembly line that churns out hitters, but instead of hiring an engineer, they hired a foreman.

I had not heard that, but unless that comes along with guaranteeing $4M in salary per year from age 25-30, you're right, that's a non-starter. It's like the players proposing that all contracts have clauses that allow a player to opt out of them any time, but owners must honor them if they don't, and also team control ends after age 24.

All of this makes so much sense that I am convinced it will not happen.

As much as the owners don't want to lose games (and they don't--owners have assuredly lost billions with a B of revenue in the last two years), it's probably even more pronounced for the players who are still in the first 1-4 years of their careers. There is, I'm sure, a significant percentage of players that will run out of money/default on loans if they don't make money this year.

A reasonable compromise, I think, is one where payrolls have a $150M floor, a $200M hard cap, and limits on individual player contracts (in the past I've proposed something like no one player can make more than 15% of the cap, no 2 more than 25%, no 3 more than 32%, no 4 more than 37%, no 5 more than 41%, and no 6 more than 45%). The cap and floor would move as a percentage of total MLB revenue (and would clearly require advanced revenue sharing). In return, all players become free agents during the offseason after they turn 27, regardless of MLB service time or when they were drafted. All players must be on a 40 man roster by the offseason after they turn 23, for HS players, and 25 for junior/senior signs. Additionally, the minimum salary for all players is now $2M per year, with $1M raises for each year after they turn 24, 25, and 26. That means a player who makes it to the majors to start his age 24 season will play 4 years for a team, and will in return make $14M before hitting FA. Currently, that same player would make something like $4M-$5M, and still be 2 years away from FA. Clear wins for the majority of players, clear win for the owners in capping their payroll, clear win for the fans as rockstar prospects will get called up the second they're ready, and every team will have a straightforward path to keeping it's best players/competing in FA for the best.

For sure the service time issue. I would also imagine pitch clocks, robo umps, the extra inning bonus runner as well. But the single biggest one is surely how much money should players get? The owners would love to set a ceiling, where the players would love to set a floor. Will either side concede the other in order to get theirs?

Priority One--figure out Buxton. If you can get him for 7/$100M with $6M in largely achievable incentives (say 400 PAs or ASG nod), another $5M in tough incentives (say 550 PAs or a Gold Glove/Silver Slugger), and a further $5M in really tough incentives (say 625 PAs or an MVP). Buxton can miss a whole season and make $14M, he can make $20M for a year in which me misses 60 games, $25M if he's mostly healthy, and $30M if he's healthy and playing like it's April 2021. If he won't agree to that, immediately pivot to maximizing his value in a trade. Priority Two--see what interest exists in Kepler on the trade market. If it's minimal, keep him as a once-a-week defensive CF, and above average RF that needs to bat in the lower third. As has already been discussed, work with him to deemphasize the power in order to up the average and OBP, as a guy who will be asked to turn the order over, not create runs. If it turns out there is a market for him, proceed to priority three. Priority Three--decide if you want to truly compete in 2022. If so, keep Kepler, and look for a proven option in LF which allows your collection of MiLBers/utility guys to be backups, not starters. If not, proceed to priority four. Priority Four--figure out how to manage a LF rotation until someone grabs it. Kiriloff, Larnach, Rooker, Arraez, Martin, Celestino, and Lewis should all be in the mix, with 3-4 of them going north to start the season. Larnach and Celestino should be your top two options (Kiriloff I would prefer as my primary 1B, Arraez should be a guy that pops all over the field, Rooker is probably on his way out, and Martin/Lewis will start in the minors, barring Roy Hobbsesque performance in ST).

I think you keep Stashak, but there is no reason to keep Smeltzer or Thorpe. Garlick, Refsnyder, and Cave should all be gone (Buxton, Kepler, Kiriloff, Larnach, Arraez, Celestino, Martin/Lewis) is plenty of outfielders, not to mention you can easily find a Garlick/Ref/Cave clone in Feb/March if you really need to Agree on Astudillo Thielbar 100% needs to be kept--he'll barely cost anything, had a very solid year last year, and is a lefty. If Rogers isn't healthy/is not on the roster, he might be your only lefty. Even if Rogers is here and pitching, having Thielbar to match up against lefties in the 6th/7th allows you to keep Rogers for truly high leverage situations. Coulombe can be gone. I'd like to keep Jax and Garza if possible, particularly Jax as a guy who can pitch 2-3 innings in games you're winning/losing by 3 or more to save the bullpen. If he can be more, that's a bonus. Dobnak would 100% be claimed if waived. The Rays/A's would be all over him, as would any other team looking to fill out a rotation. He has a career 4.42 FIP, and is owed less than $9M over the next 4 years. Waive Dobnak, and he'll play for someone else, without question. Since the Twins are essentially already at 40, losing Smeltzer, Thorpe, Garlick, Ref, and Cave should leave you with enough room to add the MiLBers you need to protect. After that, you can cut Astudillo, Coulombe, Garcia, and Jax if you're signing someone better than them, otherwise they stay.

2002 and 2003 he spent significant time as a reliever (40 out of 72 appearances in relief). 2008 was certainly another really nice year (although he struck out fewer than 8/9), but 2007 was only good-not-great (when viewed in the context of best pitchers of all time), By 2009/2010 he was averaging just over 6 IP/start, while striking out less than 8/9 and 7/9 (respectively). Further, since your case is built on a hypothetical 3rd Cy, it's worth noting that, by WAR, both Randy Johnson and Ben Sheets had significantly better seasons in 2004 than Santana. If each league didn't bestow it's own trophy, but there was one award (or two, for the two best pitchers), Santana would not have won a Cy in 2004. That's what this comes down to--not that Johan wasn't amazing for a few years, but he wasn't amazing enough in those few years/those few years didn't last longer. HOF is a big deal, and to keep it that way, there have to be guys left out that have a reasonable case to be in.

Which is nice and all, but it's only 3 years. In my mind that's not long enough for HOF inclusion, unless its paired with a separate decade or more of seasons of solid or better results. This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good. I think in this instance we're probably placing a little too much emphasis on that 3rd Cy Young--if three but not two Cy Young awards is enough to take a guy from falling off the ballot in his first year of eligibility to inductee, then it's not a good metric in my opinion. Johan was a phenomenal pitcher for 3 straight years, but there's plenty of pitchers who have had 3 phenomenal years. Johan is not competing against the other pitchers pitching in 2004-2006, he's competing against every pitcher who has ever played the game. He just simply, due to lack of longevity, does not measure up.

Koufax had 6 straight years with at least 5.7 WAR, Santana's best 6 year stretch is at 3.7 as a minimum. In those 6 years, Koufax put up 46.5 WAR, Santana put up 33.5. Santana's best 3 year stretch was 20.6, while Koufax's was 25.3. Santana's best year by WAR (7.1 in 2005) would only be Koufax's 4th best year (Koufax had 10 in 1965, 9.2 in 1963, 9.1 in 1966). Koufax also would have put up even more WAR in 1964 and 1962, if he hadn't pitched 100+ fewer innings in those seasons. Koufax's prime is not just longer, it's clearly better as well. Now--Koufax did pitch far more innings than Santana, and since WAR is a counting stat, that has to be taken into account. That said, ability to throw that many high quality innings is worthwhile. I think it also has to be taken into account that Koufax retired while on top, after his 9.1 WAR in 1966, just before he turned 31. That surely made people assume he would have had 4-5 good years left at minimum, whereas Santana made it very clear he had no more good years left. Santana's career follows the same trendline, to a degree, as Koufax', but at significantly lower altitude.

I also loved Johan, but unfortunately, 45.6 WAR just is not that much, historically speaking. It puts him 120th all time, behind such household names as Charlie Buffinton, Amos Rusie, Claude Passeau, Vic Willis, and Gus Weyhing (among others). 2004-2006 were phenomenal seasons--he was the best pitcher in baseball by over 2 WAR (in fact, only 3 pitchers were even within 5 WAR of Johan in those 3 years). But I don't know that a 3 year prime, even one as good as that, is enough for HOF inclusion. I personally wouldn't be mad at his inclusion, but I think you have to be higher than 109th in all-time WAR (his position after retiring in 2012) to be included. No one is upset David Cone isn't in the HOF, even though he has 33% more WAR than Johan.

Suggesting you think baseball is not in decline--interesting. There are fewer football games for sure, and it would be nigh impossible to watch the same percentage of MLB games live as football games live, even if NFL and college D1 are combined. That said, every baseball team plays probably about a third of their games on weekend/holidays, and I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't be willing to watch a game or two during the week. MLB's goal should be to create a fanhood that would make someone want to watch out of market games because it's a good matchup. That's the crux of what I'm talking about--making the package based on in-market/out-of market perpetuates the system of people being Twins fans but not baseball fans (as other posters have pointed out). No one is arguing that's not the current reality. People are simply saying that's a bad long-term growth strategy, which is why the NFL, which has emphasized league/sport growth over team growth, has become the dominant league in the country.

And do you think ESPN+ or Netflix would have more subscribers, fewer subscribers, or the same number of subscribers if they allowed customers to pay lower rates for only the specific type of content they wanted, for example only college sports on ESPN+, or just documentaries on Netflix? This isn't hard--letting people order a la carte will create more customers, while setting prix fixe will create fewer customers. It also makes no sense to allow people to opt in and out on a monthly basis if the goal is to get baseball customers to watch more hockey/basketball, and vice versa. If the whole point of joining forces is so the three leagues gain access to each other's fanbases, why build in an option that reduces that possibility? I think you would be surprised at how many people purchase a streaming service, and just keep it, even if they're nto actively using it. People like knowing they can watch something if they want with the click of a button. How is it more complicated to divide by league, even if there are monthly options? One page, 3 boxes (one for each league), the customer selects the box(es) for the league(s) they want to subscribe to. If it's the offseason for your league, subscribing to it would simply give you access to off-season programming (classic game replays, a few studio shows, heck you could even crowdsource from fans, and put them on the "channel" but not pay them).

Bean broke this down in the previous thread, and showed that of the roster of the CR Kernels, well more than half had signing bonuses of at least $90k--even with taxes and fees, they should have cleared $35k to $40k easy. If that is used responsibly to supplement their pay, which is around $16k a year, as I've outlined as well (at A/A+ it's $11k for the 22 week season, plus $1,650 in road per diems, plus $3,220 in ST pay [this is probably a low number, as it's 28 days of $115 pay, which is what the Rays pay for a player living in the team hotel--other teams are known to pay more]), MiLB players would have no problem making ends meet. The $16k number accounts for 26 weeks, which gives every player 26 other weeks to make $12k in order to hit a total of $28k pre-tax, which is enough, in any state in the country, to net $2k every month--to do that, a player need only make $11.53 an hour at 40 hours a week. Now for a sincere question--I've yet to see from anyone claiming MiLB players are criminally underpaid either of two numbers. #1--what is the actual annual amount an 18-24 year old individual needs to live reasonably (private bedroom, reasonable amount for food and bills, some left over for saving) #2--what is the actual amount MiLB players should be paid, keeping in mind that the vast majority do not, and never will, provide any on-field benefit to the MLB team.

Because living in a different town is hardly a burden (or do you think everyone who worked in person at Target corporate on Nicollet Avenue lived in Minneapolis?). Nowhere have I advocated 8 adults in a 4 bedroom house--I've advocated 3-4 adults combining to rent a 3-4 bedroom house. The couple of searches I've done for Madison, AL, and Wichita, KS show this to be possible for $300-$400 a month, well below the 25% threshold for rent/mortgage most experts recommend. So in reality, the question should be why are you so in favor of insisting adult men not be treated like adult mean vis a vis being expected to responsibly manager their own financial choices, to the point that you are grossly exaggerating the size of the so-called burden?

We do disagree, but I respect your opinion on it, as you've always been very classy. There's no question the majority of baseball players are paid well below what they are worth (in terms of the revenue they can bring in for their employer). That said, that is true of almost any entry to mid level employee in any industry. Unfortunately, there is currently no way for players to be able to freely negotiate across all teams, and baseball as a national sport still exist. Within a few years you would be left with something akin to European soccer leagues, where there are only 2-4 teams capable of competing at the highest level, and a large underclass of teams that exist solely to fill out schedules and provide the occasional player for the elite teams. What would actually be very interesting to me is a league where all revenues are owned by the league, and distributed in equal part to all franchises, who were then given spending guidelines (floors and ceilings). However, even in that scenario, you'll still have issues in competitiveness--while money won't determine where players go, the best teams will have major advantages in signing new talent. A system where bad teams are given advantages in procuring future talent is the only way to prevent a completely oligarchic distribution of talent. Would I love to see a truly capitalistic baseball league? Yes: if I were a Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers fan.

You're missing the point I was making--forcing consumers to pay for services they don't want in order to get services they do will invariably cause some people who otherwise would have been customers to not be customers. Throw out the numbers I've been using, as they were meant to be merely directional--the three leagues should create 3 tiers (1 league, 2 leagues, or all 3 leagues) that anyone anywhere in North America (assuming they can't do worldwide) can subscribe to, and get access to every game (barring the signature games given to TBS/ESPN/FOX et al) for their leagues. I'm also not making it complicated--I'm making it much easier. A subscriber need only make one choice (what league(s) do they want), and then they're done. Having to choose between monthly or annual, and which market do I want, and am I subject to blackouts so I have to buy a different plan for a handful of days is more complicated.

I perhaps have been unclear--I think there should be one package that every fan buys, and it gives them access to every team in the league(s) they include. Football has managed to be a sport where market, while still important, is not critical to viewership. As such, it doesn't matter that both NY teams are terrible, and have been for years--the league thrives even though it's best teams are in Baltimore and Green Bay (among other places). MLB/NBA/NHL should be trying to get to that place, where they are creating not Twins or Mariners or Rangers fans, but baseball fans (who still have a favorite team, but will watch a Braves/Padres game while living in St Louis, for no other reason than that they like baseball). MLB is declining in popularity, and needs a refresh now. Embracing the times, and eliminating as many barriers to viewership as possible is the path forward.

You're right--not all markets are equal. That said, I'm willing to guess many more MiLB markets are closer to Wichita in pricing than Pensacola. Further, there is no rule that states MiLB players must reside in the town their games are played in--I imagine rents decrease dramatically if one looks in Molino, Pace, or Seminole (just for example). I simply refuse to believe that it's nigh impossible for adult men to figure out a way to find reasonably priced housing within 30-40 minutes of where they play. I also categorically reject the idea that simply because a lot of people complain about something means they're automatically telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Going back to the first individual mentioned in the ESPN article that seems to have kicked off the whole debate on this site--he blew a $400k signing bonus in 2 years. What do we call that if not poor budgeting? The idea that every player complaining about their living conditions has been good at budgeting just does not jive with any kind of sober review of reasonable budgeting. Is MiLB pay great? No. Is it sufficient to live on? Yes. And for the vast majority of 18-24 year-olds, there is nothing that would prevent them from making ~$28k a year while playing in MiLB, which gives them $2k after taxes to live on.

They should let you separate. I'll pay $120 a year to see every Twins game--I don't have much interest in access to Wild/Wolves games (and I'm sure there are Wild fans who would say the same about the Twins/Wolves, and Wolves fans Wild/Twins), and I might not be willing to pay $240 to see every Twins game. There is significant crossover between MLB/NBA/NHL fans, either at the league or market level, but there is a significant group that has no crossover, and forcing them to take a product they don't want, and paying more for the product they do want because of it, is not a good strategy. It's like Delta telling potential travelers that they can only book a flight if they also reserve a hotel and a rental car through Delta as well. Will a lot of people be ok with that? Sure. Will a lot of people decline to book with Delta, and use their money to pursue other interests instead? Absolutely. The other sports gain the viewership and stability by being discounted to the subscribers--Twins subscribers happy to pay $120 for the Twins, might not be interested in paying $120 for the Wolves, or the Wild. But if they can add both on for $120? That's something that could happen.

The whole point I'm making is that adherence to a "market" strategy is archaic--it creates a siloed fanbase and inhibits overall growth. The goal should be to get people to watch as much baseball/basketball/hockey as possible, and with a streaming service, there's no reason why a Minnesota native living in Seattle should have any barriers to watching Twins/Wild/Wolves games. One package, one price (based on how many leagues you want access to). Having separate models based on where a consumer lives is just non-sensical in a streaming world.

I've thought about this too--I'm sure the pay is uniform across organizations, otherwise the entire Top 100 list would be all but owned by the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc. who would happily have MiLB payrolls of $30M to $40M, if not more. If other, non-salary benefits are the same (i.e., the Twins can't just provide housing, or give $100 a day in per diem, or cater 3 meals a day, etc), then that explains that as well. However, if non-salary perks are not regulated, then the question becomes--if doing things like I mentioned are permissible, why is no team doing them? We have to allow for the possibility that no team thinks paying that extra money actually improves performance. That would include teams run by highly intelligent people (which is essentially all of them now).

Any apartment that has a current opening, and no imminent lessee willing to do a 12 months lease. They take 6 months in rent, and then look to bring someone in later. It also shouldn't be hard to get to creative with Airbnb, for example. Below is a quick search I did for Wichita, KS--you'll notice the second result is an entire townhouse, 3 bedrooms, for $49 a night ($1500 a month). Perhaps that would be more expensive in the summer months, but I would imagine that could be easily offset by working with the host to do an extended arrangement--maybe pay $1200 a month for 6 months, and in return for the lesser pay, the host wouldn't need to clean or worry about finding someone new every 1-3 days. With a little bit of internet legwork and creativity, finding housing should not be that hard for these players. Also, just to clarify, I'm not against MLB taking the mantle of providing housing--seems like a perfectly reasonable perk to offer. I just disagree with this idea that it's somehow a Herculean task for adult men in 2021 America to find affordable housing. https://www.airbnb.com/s/Wichita--Kansas--United-States/homes?tab_id=home_tab&refinement_paths[]=%2Fhomes&flexible_trip_dates[]=november&flexible_trip_dates[]=october&flexible_trip_lengths[]=weekend_trip&date_picker_type=flexible_dates&query=Wichita%2C Kansas%2C United States&place_id=ChIJLRh_0mrbuocRPj3TdL_VlpM&source=structured_search_input_header&search_type=autocomplete_click