Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Cap'n Piranha

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,719

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Cap'n Piranha

  1. Cap'n Piranha
    3 out of 1800 is less than 2 tenths of 1 percent of all players. Let's hold off on calling it a flood until at least a couple of players per team have opted out.
  2. Cap'n Piranha
    Sure, but only after several rounds of ultimately fruitless negotiations with the players where neither side is willing to budge.
  3. Cap'n Piranha
    And this is the definition of a loaded statement. I say you're something, and by you denying it, it only confirms you are what I say. The original number seemed illegitimate, which I demonstrated it was. As for IL vs DL, that's a serious thing--serious enough that MLB changed it. Continuing to use the ableist term DL shows dismissiveness towards the experience of thousands of humans.
  4. Cap'n Piranha
    It's IL, not DL. I'm also not being pedantic, I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the numerical logic--namely that even in a full 162 game season last year, probably only about 1500 to 1600 players were paid $100k by a major league team. It's no surprise that when salaries are cut by 63% (which is less of a cut than the owners are taking in revenue, by the way), that the proportion of players making below $100k increases. Last year to make $100k, a player only needed to be on a roster for about 1/6 of the season--this year it will be almost half. The numbers simply don't add up, and at the end of the year, I am willing to bet that nowhere near 42% of players made less than $100k.
  5. Cap'n Piranha
    Untrue. If Luis Arraez is on the Twins roster for all 60 games, he will be paid $208k. His career earnings are not even $500k. Ditto for Dobnak, Smeltzer, Thorpe, Alcala, and a bunch more, including any of the Twins top prospects who find their way onto an expanded roster.
  6. Cap'n Piranha
    Interesting. 528 divided by .42 comes out to 1,257 players, or about 42 per team. Given that the 40 man roster is still a thing, and not every player on it is on a big league deal, I have to assume his database of players includes quite a few players who would not have made more than $100k from an MLB team even if there wasn't a pandemic.
  7. Cap'n Piranha
    I don't think any baseball player would be required to take a leave from their job as a baseball player in order to receive compensation for being a baseball player. Therefore, your caveat is not applicable to baseball players, and as I've pointed out, it's not $100k for two months, it's $200k for two months.
  8. Cap'n Piranha
    Per my understanding, the new agreement means that players will get 37% of their original 2020 salaries--since 37% of the 2020 minimum of $563k (that number from b-ref) is $208k, I don't know how you're getting $100k or less for 42% of players. If rosters are expanded to 30 players, that means 378 players (more than 12 a team) are spending at most 28 games on the active roster (that's if they don't change the roster at all). Let's say teams used 45 players over the season (keeping in mind that if a player goes on the IL, they still get their MLB pay)--you now need 567 players to be on the roster for 28 games or fewer, which is almost 19 per team. Still seems unlikely.
  9. Cap'n Piranha
    If I was going to be paid anywhere between $200k and $10M, yes I absolutely would.
  10. Cap'n Piranha
    So because you can name one 23 year old who died out of literally 104 MILLION people 24 or under, we now have to abandon all use of probability in making decisions? The flu is actually more deadly to younger groups than the coronavirus--should MLB immediately suspend play any time there's a flu outbreak going forward? Also, the virus does not have agency--it merely seeks to reproduce as much as possible, and humans are simply a good environment for that to happen. Your ability to resist and defeat the virus' attempts to utilize your body as a host site for reproduction is definitely relevant to your age, and especially your physical condition. Saying "if the virus is going to kill you it's going to kill you" is meaningless, because I can just as easily say "if your immune system is going to defeat COVID, it's going to defeat COVID".
  11. Cap'n Piranha
    Yes, I would like to watch baseball. Even if it's a bunch of minor leaguers, I'll just consider it a preview of what the league will look like in 2-4 years.
  12. Cap'n Piranha
    Allow them into their offices before anyone else ca be in the clubhouse. Keep the door closed at all times, and provide them with the TV feed to the game and a dedicated phone line to a healthy, 23 year old marketing intern on the bench, who will relay all the manager's instructions. Problem solved.
  13. Cap'n Piranha
    So for almost 42 years, we disliked Griffith's widely known comments, but didn't care enough to downplay his history with the team; quite the opposite, it was ensured his history with the team was preserved (or so it seemed). If this statue truly makes black people uncomfortable, my question would be if it has always made them uncomfortable, or is that just happening now. If the former, I would then ask if the Twins were told that, and chose not to act, or if it was just not brought up. If the latter, I would ask why there are now uncomfortable feelings when none existed before. Applying the current cultural lens to the past is a very good way to support the erasing of the past, which is well on the way to repeating the past.
  14. Cap'n Piranha
    From the context, it appears he called Carew a fool for accepting a $150k salary, implying that he thought Carew should have looked for more money--I'm not sure why that's so terrible. If I'm missing something or misunderstanding the context, I reserve the right to change my take.
  15. Cap'n Piranha
    Does this include statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves? Should one of our states, and our nation's capitol city, be renamed? Should the Declaration of Independence be removed from display?
  16. Cap'n Piranha
    As a student of history, I don't think removing history is ever a good idea. I'm not super familiar with Calvin Griffith, so I don't know if this speech in 1978 was a bad day, or par for the course for him. I do think it's interesting to realize that these comments probably didn't just come to light a couple of weeks ago--that means for years we could recognize the wrongness of what he said, but judge him as a whole, not for a moment in time; we seem to have lost that capability of discernment as a society in the last 4 weeks.
  17. Cap'n Piranha
    Prior to the draft, yes, I'm sure they had talked with a number of players, including these 4, about expectations around signing. That being said, with so little margin for error, it doesn't take a whole lot for everything to blow up. If both Sabato and Soularie all of the sudden decide they want slot, or they'll go back to school, the Twins probably can't sign Raya or Rosario. If the demands for either Raya or Rosario go up as well, could be a problem. I believe the front office did it's homework, and I have no reason to believe they won't be able to sign all 4, but it's far from a guarantee, and I won't feel confident about all 4 signing until they all actually do.
  18. Cap'n Piranha
    As MLhouse said above, anyone can have a sports draft. Hell, me and 29 of my closest friends could decide we're going to have an MLB draft, each pick 25 players, and start our own league. It won't go anywhere, because the players won't sign with us, because we don't have the money to sign them. But if Jeff Bezos gave us each $1B, and we gave each drafted player $10M to play this year, we would undoubtedly steal almost every player we drafted from MLB. So like I said, what is the actual downside to MLB losing it's antitrust exemption?
  19. Cap'n Piranha
    Is there literature you can point me to that details why the owners MUST allow the current membership of the MLBPA to play, else lose the antitrust exemption? Specifically after 2021, when there will be absolutely no extant agreements between the owners and players? Further, say MLB does lose it's anti-trust exemption; what are the pitfalls of that other than some potential lawsuits that most teams could probably get around with beefed-up employment contracts. It would maybe open the way for competitor leagues, but as I've detailed in other posts, are there really 20-30 entities willing to lose tens of millions of dollars a year in order to start a rival league? Unless the players are willing to take a large pay cut, no new league featuring current MLBPA players will be profitable for some time; if the players are willing to take a pay cut, why not stay with the established league, rather than risk at all on something that might fold in a year or two. Football is by far the most popular sport in the US, and yet no alternative league has ever established itself as a mainstream competitor; why would a less popular sport prove different?
  20. Cap'n Piranha
    As long as Sano continues to make hard contact, he will be fine. The Prince Fielder comp is only a problem for the Twins if they give Sano a Price Fielder contract.
  21. Cap'n Piranha
    I would doubt MLB is at a 20% profitability rate, as that would average out to about $70M per team. Even if it is true, there are questions; is that 20% before taxes? If so, that immediately shrinks to 15%. Is that 20% profitability rate standard across all clubs? Of course it's not, which means some teams can absorb fanless games due to their 30-40% profitability rate, while others will immediately go into the red due to their 2-5% profitability rate. The owners will collectively bargain on this, because it's not in the interest of the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox to see 5-10 franchises fold. It demonstrates the financials of MLB are not as sound as perceived, which lessens the value of all remaining franchises. It reduces the interest in baseball as a whole, which reduces the revenue available from national media. MLB's revenue this year, assuming an 82 game fanless season is down at minimum 60%, if not more. There is no business whatsoever that would continue to pay full freight (as the players are demanding for any games played) while absorbing a massive hit to revenue.
  22. Cap'n Piranha
    Pete Rose played 100 years ago? Also, if you read past my first sentence, you would have seen that I addressed what you were saying. The owners will throw out players who don't play at a reduced rate of pay if that becomes their best option. That should be obvious, since they do it every year. Or did you think every player that retires does so with at least one contract offer for at least the amount they want? When something gets too far out of balance, it goes not back to equilibrium, but out of balance to the other side. The current situation is making player contracts, for at least this year and next, out of balance. The players can do the smart thing and move back towards equilibrium themselves, or they can watch as the owners restructure in their favor.
  23. Cap'n Piranha
    Tell that to Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson. I'm also not saying owners would ban players, I'm saying the owners could create their own CBA, and only employ players who agree to abide by it. That could be the entire current membership of the current MLBPA, none of the current MLBPA, or somewhere in between. Will some fans be turned off by this, and refuse to consume baseball? Sure. But the vast majority will pretty quickly, if not instantaneously move on, and care only that their favorite team is playing again. I should also say, I'm not opposed to players getting paid, just the idea that they are somehow aggrieved by vicious parsimonious owners. I'm also not on the side of the owners--I simply think if the players aren't careful, they will find out the hard way just how replaceable they are. Painlessly replaceable? No--getting rid of the current players will be like performing your own root canal for the owners. But if the tooth is so painful it causes you to pass out, and is getting infected opening up chance of death, a self-performed root canal might be the preferable option. And that's what players, and some posters on this board, don't seem to understand; the owners are only going to put up with so much before the drastic option becomes the reasonable one.
  24. Cap'n Piranha
    What recourse does the MLBPA have, legally speaking, to compel enforcement of pay in this scenario? The players agreed, back in March, that they would only get 4% of total pay (the $170M already distributed) if there is no season. If the owners are looking at tens of millions in losses should games be played, compared to only millions in losses if there not, why wouldn't the owners simply assert the season can't be played, due to inability to guarantee health for all present? In some cases, like where I live in Washington, the state will do it for the owners--MLB games can't have fans until phase 4 of our plan, and we're currently only in phase 1. Since there has to be at least 3 weeks in between each phase, there's no way Seattle could have fans at a game in the beginning of July, even if there ceased to be any new cases of Covid-19.
  25. Cap'n Piranha
    There is a free market: for free agents. This past offseason, Josh Donaldson had absolutely no restrictions on which major league team he could play for. It's true the majority of MLB players don't operate within a free market, but it's silly to say none do.
×
×
  • Create New...