Dozier Debate: Contract Extension? Pace of Play?

I think they should start with fewer measures to speed up the game. I am against the pitch clock. it is the past time for a reason...

I am for a Dozier extention.

It would be nice to know what our mindset on salaries are for the future.  I think the Twins should spend a minimum of $130M (obviously there can be exceptions).  There is also reason to believe that this organization can afford $140-150M.  IF, we are going to spend $130M, I think it is a solid plan to hold the payroll slot for a top flight pitcher, like Darvish,  should one come available.  If we are willing to go up to $150M, we can sign Dozier too.  With Mauer coming off the books in '19, and then Hughes you will have room to sign some of your up and coming talent.

My opinion can’t be formed without qualifiers in years and dollars. 5 years and $100M? Hard pass, thanks Mr. Dozier, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. 4 years and $60M? Welcome aboard.

With pace of play, it has to be asked—if baseball is struggling to attract younger fans due to the length of the games, it’s going to have a tough time remaining relevant in the next 50-100 years. Therefore, the question is whether something should be changed to save it, or preserved to lose it.

The problem with extending Dozier is you almost have to then trade some MI talent. And they haven't shown any indication of trading anything so far. If you can't count on one or two of their MI prospects making the jump soon, there is no sense in having a scouting or analytical dept. Tat said, I would not extend Dozier, and since it's too late to effectively trade him I would let it play out. I highly doubt I would then keep him. In a perfect world I would use that money on pitching.

Actually, there are pitch times specified in the rule book that player and umpire routines conformed to for all of Major League baseball history up until very recently (last 20 years?).

I am not sure why some people consider the last 20 years of MLB to be more "real baseball" than the previous ~125 of MLB, or all ~145 of all other levels of baseball (which is simply what the pitch clock would train modern MLB player and umpire routines to follow).

Another way to put the above: "There's no 40 second break between pitches in baseball. No 40 second break. I don't give a @$% what they've done in MLB since 2000. There's No. Effing. 40. Second. Break."

Settle down Francis. I wonder what those pitch times are? I did look it up recently and apparently in the 1920's the average game was about two hours then sometime around the 80's or 90's it had crept past three hours. That to me is ridiculous. It is the same game so what happened? I sure most of it is ads. American tv has a horrible, unwatchable amount of ads. Probably not going to change that much although the NFL got rid of the tv break after kickoffs. That aside if you don't want a clock even a hidden one I would start with of you undo the Velcro strap on your glove at the plate that glove is then confiscated and you must play the rest of the game with one glove. I don't wanna be startin somethin, just sayin

Actually, there are pitch times specified in the rule book that player and umpire routines conformed to for all of Major League baseball history up until very recently (last 20 years?).
I am not sure why some people consider the last 20 years of MLB to be more "real baseball" than the previous ~125 of MLB, or all ~145 of all other levels of baseball (which is simply what the pitch clock would train modern MLB player and umpire routines to follow).

Another way to put the above: "There's no 40 second break between pitches in baseball. No 40 second break. I don't give a @$% what they've done in MLB since 2000. There's No. Effing. 40. Second. Break."

When I see a major piece of legislation being voted down because of a few swing votes that cited integrity, transparency, etc,   as the reason only to see that same legislation passed a couple days later that somehow coincidentally had contracts(pork) for the swing voter's states added to the bill am I too skeptical to think the same of the player's union?     I would welcome more than a generic "we voted it down to protect the integrity of the game". 

What is it exactly that compromises the integrity of the game?  How about some details that a reasonable person would agree with.   Why did I immediately think "Reasonable request turned down, not because of the substance of the request but because it could be used for negotiating or political purposes."    Took me very little time to find an article supporting that thought.   

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/pace-play-impasse-signal-larger-issue-baseball-article-1.3768152

This also supports Spycake's position that slow pace has been a recent issue rather than an issue throughout the history of the game.   it also supports my memory that I didn't used to yell at the TV " throw the ball already!" or "get in the batter's box already!".   

Golf is also a game that has no natural clock and yet they have pace of play rules.    As a result there was a penalty stroke assessed in 2017,  one in 2013 (to an amateur at Augusta) and one in 1995.    I can easily imagine that once the players get past their pettiness this rule would have no effect at all on the game except for quicker pace.    Of course there are other possibilities for speeding up play but this is a no brainer.

As for Dozier's pace of game comments, the player's union has demonstrated clearly that they know the desire of the league to speed up games, and that they are apparently not willing or capable to do what it takes to make it happen on their own. 

I really do think that MLB is beginning to lose their younger fans.  I work in a high school and talk to my kids about sports among other things, and there are just not many baseball fans.  Could be the area that I am in (Syracuse), but our district has five high schools and only one baseball team.  Little leagues are still somewhat popular, but I do feel that the sport needs to adapt a little.  I think a pitch clock could be effective, but it doesn't seem to be the main aspect that is hindering popularity of the sport.  I go to many minor league baseball games a year, and have not really noticed the game being any quicker due to the pitch clock.  I actually really like the clock between innings.  I think limiting the amount of times a catcher can visit the mound will help.  Perhaps even restricting the amount of times a pitcher can step off the mound or a batter can call for time; this probably wouldn't work for obvious reasons, I am just trying to think where time can be saved.  Maybe they look at the umpires and expand the zone to get outs "faster" and make the batters swing the bat.  When I watch a game, I don't necessarily feel like it's the game that is slow, more so that the pitchers aren't that good (not throwing strikes, walking guys, giving up hits/runs, etc...) and causing the mound visits and pitching changes that actually do extend the time.

As far as Dozier goes, I think giving him a 4-5 year extension is a mistake regardless of money.  Where is he going to play in two years?  I don't think he has the arm for third nor the reaction time needed.  Realistically his next position is as a first baseman and that seems to be the place most suited for Sano if they keep him that long.  I know Dozier is a solid player and 30+ home runs and positive leadership are difficult to replace, but sometimes a guy gets squeezed out.  Difficult decision to make.  I play OOTP baseball on a yearly basis and my team has never really been worse for not signing Dozier to an extension; I also know that a video game doesn't equate real life.

Why after all these years does the game have to hurry up?  Maybe just shorten the game to 7 innings like high school.

I've seen this a few times in the past few months the idea of moving Dozier to 3rd.  Isn't his arm why he didn't stick at short?

His arm would play much better at 1st base than at 3rd base.

Why after all these years does the game have to hurry up?  Maybe just shorten the game to 7 innings like high school.

Obviously not happening, but it's interesting to think about. Sit back and think about all of the player (supply/demand) ramifications this would have. Too many to type, but I think elite closers would become more valuable, position players with one elite skill (HR, speed, etc) would become more valuable, and 4/5th starters and just good RP would become less valuable. 

Also... what would that do to lineup construction?

Maybe, at the same time, they do away with the DH

My head is spinning!

Oops forgot the emoticon I guess. Spycake I'm with ya on this. See rite there you accounted for 35 minutes. I think we would all take that and then some. Maybe some concession on the ads to shorten the frequency or duration

 

 

I wonder how much the 'game of chicken' that's going on regarding the signing of free agents applies to Dozier??   Lots I think.  If players start to panic and sign for less, it drives Dozier's price down.

This is an interesting ramification of the depressed FA market that I hadn't thought about. Not only as it relates to Dozier but also the other 5 (?) guys the Twins would be interested in talking to about an extension. 

Obviously it depends on how he does this year, but I think this FA market would make it more likely that Dozier would take the ~18M qualifying offer. I mean, I don't think he'd get Cain money (5/80M), so if he was a FA right now, what could he expect? 4/60? 3/50? Especially if he had a draft pick tied to him. 

Same goes for less potentially stratospheric players like Rosario, Kepler, and Polanco (though I'm a big Rosario fan).... would this market make them more willing to add a couple potential FA years on to an extension? Maybe. Would Eddie take a  Yelich-esque offer of 7/50M, which would buy out two of his FA years?