DocBauer

I'm having a hard time "clicking" my vote. What's really disappointing in this scenario is the proposed lift from Hill that hasn't happened. I am stubborn, combining real life and electronic life, that the pen should be OK. I'm voting for another SP arm, though I think Pineda is going to continue to help. But if there is a Dyson/Romero move out there, then I say to do both.

And if this is true...not saying it's not...then the owners are being very, very short sighted.

I probably should have clarified my comments in regard to some pushback by agents like Boras and other rumors that have been put it there. In truth, we don't have all the financial details. The owners won't open their books and I don't know if they should or shouldn't. I guess my point is an agreement was reached based on information/speculation as it was known at the time. I am not against the players and a flat proration of salaries at all. But if new information shows a very different prospectus for income/lost income, then I can see the point of owners wanting to open up conversation again and basically say; "look guys, when we talked about this a couple months ago projections were X. We now see an entirely different set of numbers we didn't anticipate at the time that shows Y." Every business has bottom lines they have to look at for the profitability and health of their business. My own company is privately owned and doing a great job for all their employees. But they are also capping salaries, bonuses incentives and the such to make sure everyone is taken care of and the company stays healthy. I don't know if the owners of my company are billionaires or multi millionaires, but they are very wealthy. But my company is only a single entity under their corporate umbrella. That means overhead and thousands of additional employees they are responsible for. The billionaire owners of MLB franchises are in a similar situation. Do the owners have some sort of catastrophic insurance to offset losses from the pandemic? I don't know. Maybe they do. I find myself somewhat dubious that even if they do, it fully offsets projected losses. And if they are playing games with the players to squeeze out a little more, then shame on them. (Especially with a new labor agreement due in the near future). But if there are honest new numbers that have come to light, then I understand them going to the union and stating as such and hammering out a different arrangement for everyone's sake. I hate to say this as I want everyone to play nice always, for the good of the sport we all love, but I hope the owners are being honest and the players will be open minded.

FINANCIALLY: I take no sides. Just using basic logic, as I stated in a sister thread, a percentage of something is better than all of nothing. I side with baseball and it's health and future, and don't choose to pick a side. But to just say billionaire owners will be fine with losses is a poor and destructive arguement. Do these billionaire owners have no other businesses,and employees who are not affected by covid? Do these billionaire owners just have stacks of liquid cash to just dispense as they will? The answer is no. MLB is a business, an elite business and franchise to be sure, but still a business. And like any business, big or small, it is being impacted by the pandemic. The players deserve to be paid. As do the coaches, clubhouse attendants and everyone else involved. And if you own a franchise, there is absolutely an obligation to your product and your employees. But just dishing out millions of $ to ballplayers for a partial season at full season rate is also not logical or responsible for the sake of the franchise, it's stability or the stability of MLB as a whole. There needs to be a compromise that makes sense for both sides. Someone brought up a year in which ALL teams do a universal profit sharing system to make this work. Agreed 100%. For the good of the game it makes sense and SHOULD to everyone involved. ON THE FIELD: I've heard 100G season and 80G season. I've also seen ridiculous re-alignment options to save money. The various divisions/conferences are already perfectly set, with the EXCEPTION some teams may simply not be allowed to play at home. That is the LEAST of the logistical or financial issues involved. Each team plays their own division opponents in 6 3 game series home and away. That's 72 games. You then play your cross league region for a pair of 3 game home and away series for a total of 24 games. Add it up and you have a 96 game season. PLAYOFFS: For 2020, if not beyond, you have 6 playoff teams in each league. The top division winners by record get a bye. The other 4 teams play a 3 game series to move on to the next 5 game round before a traditional 7 game WS. MILB: While some ML teams may be forced to play elsewhere other than home parks, including their ST facilities, at least initially, there is no reason milb can't have their own 60-80 game season playing a variation of the Cactus and Grapefruit league for further savings. The MLB and milb season both commence. The devil is in the details when it comes to the safety logistics to make all of this work. But assuming for a moment this is worked out, the singular important piece is the financial/sharing/pro-rated $ aspect of a ML season. After that, this just really isn't that hard. Not sure i want the job, but when do I get to step in to Manfred's job, or at least become his chief advisor, lol?

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that. I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge. I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement. Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.

I'm not sure what guarantees for revenue exist in MLB. I mean, in the NFL, for example, they negotiate a perecteage of total revenue to be paid to players. I'm not sure that exists in MLB. I want to say, in this circumstance, players are always pro-rated by games played. But is that flat based on TV/radio revenue or is there some clause that equates to total revenue based on gates and parking and food and drink, etc? Don't have a clue. Glad I'm not in charge. At the end of the day, we're still talking about a business. And all business is affected at this point. There is going to be a big loss in revenue and salaries. They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Even in a multi-billion revenue sport, there is going to have to be an acceptable loss in both sides. Sounds simplistic, but part of something is better than all of nothing.

The NCAA is allowing all spring sport athletes to return for another year of competition/eligibility. This includes baseball amongst other sports such as softball, track and field, tennis, golf, etc, unless I missed any exclusions. Kudos to the NCAA for doing something right for a change. The problem with this, however, is 3 fold: 1] What does the athlete want to do? 2] With point #1, every spring sport I can think of is always a partial scholarship, so the onus is on any athlete to incur further debt for another year, pending various other grants or scholarships. 3] Various universities may simply not have funds available to "float" even partial scholarships for another year. Without a full 2020 schedule of school and athletics, some schools may have to shut their doors for a year, if not longer, or make serious changes/cutbacks. Wisconsin, for example, has already stated they will not allow for an extra year as it would not be fair to athletes who had season's cut short, nor for non athlete attendees on various scholarships. The 5 round draft hurts everyone involved. MLB should expand to at least 10 rounds, IMO, if not 15-20, to allow for these circumstances. MLB is still a business, and one that has ZERO cash flow at the moment and has no idea what is going to transpire for 2020. But MLB also has to build for their own future, without opening up some crazy floodgate for upper echelon teams with greater financial reserves. The EASY solution, IMO, to allow for what is happening in the world at this moment, and to be fair for all involved, is to adopt old school draft rules for a year. I don't recall all the parameters as not only have signing numbers and dates for offers changed, but IIRC correctly, there used to be two different phases of the draft. Regardless, there used to be a "draft and follow" portion of the selection process. Certain levels of players could be drafted and allowed to play the following year and then signed by the drafting team up until a couple weeks before the next draft. They could sign or re-enter the draft at that point. The signage pool is what it is and has become. And teams can play with their pool to over sign or under sign various players. And after the first few rounds of the draft, we have all seen wild swings from $10k to $200+K for college players in particular. And maybe the $20K should be bumped closer to $40-50k. But allow teams to make an additional 5-10-15 selections and let the draftees make the choice. Do they sign now? Or do they wait to sign before the next draft, counting against the team's pool of 2020/2021 adjusted pool? Nobody is on the hook for anything except a wait and see scenario. To player and team, this seems the only fair way to me.

Couple things about Garver: 1] While 2019 may have surprised to some degree, and it may or may not be his career season, and the ball may have influenced his season and seasons to come, I've always believed in his offensive ability. Even with various factors leading to some regression, he's still a fine hitter, with discipline and with power. He's a quality offensive player and not "just" for a catcher. 2] While a bit of a late bloomer, being a college player and catcher, he is in his prime years at this moment and SHOULD be in line for another 3-4yrs of prime production age wise barring injury concerns. 3] Unless I have missed something, he has never had anything, injury wise, of any concern thus far in his career that wasn't "normal" such as a sprained ankle and the such. The exception being a couple concussions, though I am unsure to the degree of either of them. He seems to be built sturdily, seems to be in fine shape, and has recovered from various nicks and the such quickly. If concussions don't return as a bugaboo, again, he should have another 3-4 prime years available behind the plate. 4] While coming up through the minors, he shared a lot of time behind the plate. This was due to him still developing defensively as well as sharing time with guys like fellow draftee Turner. So the actual physical wear and tear mileage behind the plate has been somewhat mitigated before he reached MLB. And even last year, during his breakout, he still shared time with the solid, productive veteran Castro. 5] Rocco, and the FO, recognize the value of quality catching on the club, with a plan not to also not wear out their players. We saw it some at the end of 2018 when Garver was showing improvement but they struck with veteran Wilson a chunk of the time. Yes, this was also defense/experience related. But in a lost season, they also didn't just throw caution to the wind and just say "the he'll with it" and throw Garver out there daily. Avilla was brought in as a perfect 1yr replacement for Castro to continue having a quality mix and match scenario...with Astudillo available...until someone like Jeffers was ready. Now, the whole milb season of play and development is under as big of a cloud as the ML season is, and could require a whole lot of re-thinking and re-examination roster wise for 2021 for all teams at all positions, but the Twins seem to have a good handle on what they want to do behind the plate. And all of this is to say, yet again, Garver is primed to be a top catcher for the next 3-4yrs.

I find the base of the article interesting, but rather frustrating. Unless a SP is more or less a "junk baller", meaning low velocity so he tosses up a series of change ups and breaking balls, wouldn't most all SP be above the 48% threshold? I mean, for the most part, everything still works off the FB and FB location doesn't it?

As I understand it, Duffey moved from a traditional curve to more of a power curve or slurve. Some have called it a slider but my understanding is more of an adaptation of his curveball, which he used to throw 2 variations of. Alcala throws consistently in the mid 90's, right around May's velocity, but cranks it up to the high 90's. Colina, Chalmers and Duran do the same, though the hope at present time all 3 can remain in the rotation, especially Duran who is right there with Balazovic for top rotation arm hopefulls.

I've only had a chance to watch a couple of games but they were fun and very well done. And kudos to the music selection between innings!

Me trying to sound smart about hitting would be about as intelligent as saying I believe I could enjoy a conversation in Portuguese. (I do not speak Portugese). The take that I find most interesting is the point of a batter "tunneling" the pitch on its way, striking if it is in that tunnel and laying off if not. Makes complete sense and not necessarily at Odds with the William's thought process. In theory, a batter should know his own zone, and SHOULD be able to make good contact even if the pitch isn't a "good pitch to hit", in converse to the William's approach in that regard. The problem I see with that...not including all hitters KNOWING their hitting zone or always trusting it...is simply having the inate ability to adjust during their swing. To so degree, I think he is describing what is often referred to as being a "bad ball" hitter. Oliva and Puckett had that ability. And while Arraez is a more patient hitter, he also seems to have that special ability to adjust and put the bat on ball and hit it somewhere. Rosario, to me, is very reminiscent of Puckett, though not quite with the same results. Hits or XB hits or HR, he has an insane ability to barrell up on balls that others just can't. It's what makes him a good and sometimes great player. Of course, Eddie also thinks he can do that all of the time, which nobody can. And while it's cruelty to dead animal carcasses to continue beating the same one, just imagine how good he could be if he could hold back just a little, reign in his aggressiveness just a bit, and "tunnel" those pitches just a little more.

Anyone who played for the Yankees. There, I said it for all of us. In all seriousness, Jeter was a good ballplayer, but I agree he was very overrated. But, Yankee, east coast bias, etc. This goes back a few years but the guy I "hated" was Ricky Henderson. Hits, HR, SB, he just seemed to torment the Twins. Of course, he seemed to do that to everyone else too. I also didn't care for his attitude.

Love the pen but agree Crain should be plugged in their somewhere. JC Romero had 2 not very good seasons and 3 good ones amongst his 5. He's honorable mention at least. Francisco Liriano...oh what could have been...had 2 poor seasons, and we all know why, and 3 good/great ones. I think I'd have to put him in the rotation ahead of Silva or Milton, though I'm torn which one I'd pull.

Were I to guess, I'd say there will be a multi-level Cactus and Grapefruit milb season even with expanded ML rosters. Even abbreviated, there has to be some sort of milb season.

I hate when the Twins play the Royals and I am blacked out on the MLB streaming service. But I will watch the Royals on TV because. I work for a communication company. The NFL RedZone is popular for fans to see parts of games and follow along with stats for fantasy players. Perhaps MLB should look at something similar?

General comment/observation: There has been a lot of debate on some of these decade teams regarding 1B/OF and the such. But one thing we all realize is that the infield has been rather hit and miss at times. No secret huh? But while some guys are gone...Nunez, Dozier and Escobar...there seems to have been a shift in the depth and talent in the infield the last few years, THANKFULLY! Sano, now Donaldson, Polanco, Arraez, and even quality reserves like Adrianza and Marwin have changed the outlook. Lewis has huge upside. While the luster bas worn off one, there is a long road ahead for another, and some questions remain about a 3rd, Javier, Cavaco and Miranda offer optimism. And there are a couple of other recent college additions in the lower minors who have a ton of potential. Just a few years ago, Blenkenhorn would have been receiving hopeful wishes and dreams.

I like the DH. I hate the virtual automatic out of pitchers batting. To me, pitching is so specialized it's almost like asking a QB to block and tackle. Or as someone pointed out earlier, if pitchers should hit, then position players should know how to pitch. It just doesn't work. I often see references to the NL game. In both leagues, more so the NL, there used to be more bunting, hit and run plays and stolen bases. It was never just based solely on pitchers in the lineup. But the game has changed. The DH is here to stay and I'm glad. But I'd really like to see it in both leagues. I prefer the divisions the way they are now. We've been arguing in other threads about how ridiculous this idea is. And IF it is to save money, it only does so if you STAY in your division for the whole abbreviated season. The WC has added a lot of excitement to September and October baseball. I'm fine with keeping it the way it is. The ONLY caveat I could see is another WC brought in to avoid the 1 game playoff. How about a couple of 3 game series to continue on?

Punto works at 2B in this scenario because, well, who else? While Ford was fun and did some good things, seems to me pre Red Sox Ortiz is the better choice at DH.

Offensive MVP for the Vikings in 2020? Kubiak! Jefferson needs to gain a couple pounds of strength to play outside at times, which he has done. Thielen has played outside at times. Bush Johnson is not small, but might be a best fit as a slot receiver, though he seems to also have a complete game. Osborn has played outside, and seems to have the quicks and speed to be outside but with limited size. Perhaps young veteran Sharpe, the biggest receiver on the roster, can find his potential with a new team. Smith, the underrated Conklin and surprise Dillon have tons of potential. But run heavy offense or not, assuming the OL can be solid, you need to find a way a slot heavy receiving corps can all function to the best of their abilities.

While I don't dismiss Javier playing SS...assuming sustained health and recovering his prospect momentum...it just feels like he's physically growing out of the position, just gaining muscle and developing. Miranda might be the best 3B option in the system at this point. Cavaco could also end up at 3B eventually as well, though he's a ways away to project to the majors, much as as to which left side spot. Hopefully, we're at least 3yrs away from having to find the next 3B. Agree fully that Lewis could debut as a super utility just based on opportunity. I think you build your roster with the best talent available, with position flexibility, and figure it out. IMO, Lewis has everything needed to succeed at SS as well as 3B. As much as I LOVE Arraez, if your talent level pushes Polanco off SS, his arm just won't play at 3B, even if the rest of him does, as a talent, 2B would be the natural position for him. If I had to choose Polanco or Arraez at 2B, I'd have to go with Polanco.

Agreed his arm is the biggest issue. 100% healthy, hopefully, and with more time spent with his new throwing motion, I look for additional improvement. I also agree that having a better defensive player to his right helps. Let's face it, quality defense is always important, always nice to have. But the game has changed from contact, situational hitting and movement to power and launch angle. "Airtight" defense isn't quite the requirement it used to be. Only 26 and with all his positives, I think he can be the SS for several years barring injury. To me it's more about the rest of the team vs a "how long" discussion. You put your best players on the field. I believe Lewis is going to be one of those players very soon. But does he stay at SS and move Polanco to 2B? Or is there nobody to replace Donaldson in a few years so Lewis goes there and Polanco stays at SS?

Already gave a shout out to Marshall, who others have mentioned. And I had forgotten about Campbell. I'm OK with leaving Marshall off the list, and Corbettm due to actual time with the organization. I hate to be "that guy" who breaks with the original intent of "top 5", but I'm just not sure we'll ever agree on anything other than a top 7 with Campbell and Perkins thrown in.

Just a couple points of clarification: 1] Unless I read it wrong, I think the original point was looking at Bauer as a FA target next year, in relation to how the FA situation has changed for the Twins. Hence my thought/question was his desire for 1yr contracts and does that fit for the Twins organization. 2] While the topic of the Dodgers holding down payroll has been brought up, considering the sure amount of $ on their books, and luxury tax implications not withstanding, I don't believe it's ever been confirmed that was their intent. Two items I have read from various outlets are: A] Despite success and quality numbers, his second half numbers may have slipped, here or there at least, and with available depth on hand, they moved him late to the pen. B] With available ST depth on hand, and questions about their bullpen depth, the Dodgers moved him to the pen for depth there in the stretch run and playoffs. Considering his results in the pen, and his best season results against LH batters in 2019, and from the sources I've read, I subscribe to possibility B myself.

In regard to milb, IF there will not be fan attendance, or none for a portion of the season, why not follow the original AZ/FL proposal that was brought up for MLB? I hate the idea of cities/towns losing out on their team's season's for a variety of reasons, whether it be for the entire shortened season or a portion of it. And I have no idea what kind of facilities the other 29 teams have at their ST complexes, but unless I'm grossly mistaken, don't they all have multiple fields and living facilities to accommodate their milb ST? Let them play there for 70-80 games or so and play the teams in their respective states.