Trov

I wish the players you mentioned drafted after you had put where they were drafted. You make it seem they were very near them, but my guess that is not the case. Josh Hamilton was a bust for the Rays in that draft as well. I have stated many times, everyone misses in drafts and have the wish we would have taken this guy. How many teams are kicking themselves for missing on Trout? Yes this was three years in a row of high picks but very rare will a player be a lock. Even early on the Mauer draft people said the Twins screwed up, but now years down the road he was the better pick.

Ted, you clearly are anti owners, based on this and previous articles. I am not pro either side, but understand it takes two sides to make a deal. You point out that all proposals given to the players are for a similar amount of total pay. Clearly, the owners have determined that is what they are willing to pay and dug in. Well players are also dug in at full prorate for as many games as possible. Their first proposal to owners would take season into winter months requiring games to be at neutral sites, something the players first balked at saying they want to be home with families when the all AZ or AZ FL split was mulled about. So what changed, of they now will get paid more money. They also want players, under their own process to allow players to opt out at full pay. The league would have no say on who qualifies for "high risk." What would stop every player saying they are high risk, I won't play and pay me? Nothing under their proposal because they make the call on who is high risk. I bet many of the high paid players that are set for free agency would take the high risk route, no short season to drop numbers but still get full pay, sounds good to me if I am a player. The players are just as dug in as the owners. You point out the owners will not open books, well they offered to do that for this year for a full 50 50 split of the revenue, that would require an accounting of revenue, and opening of the books. The players had a resounding hell no to that. The players want no cap but full transparency of the owners books. What non publicly traded business gives their employees full look at the books? You seem to forget this is a business and the owners are willing to take losses this year, but have a bottom line of that. They can force it on the players the 50 games. The players will cry that they want to give the fans more baseball, which the owners offered, but it would be at same pay. So what the players really want is more money, not more baseball. Who can blame them. Both sides are so dug in and neither are willing to give. I wish they both would give a little, but neither willing to with how the last few off seasons have gone. You point out that it is Manfred that has led to the division, but I disagree. I believe it is that GM's have changed the way they value players and contracts. It used to be lets sign a guy into their late 30's for early 40's paying them top dollar, because we want them for the first few years and will accept the bad years. Teams quickly learned, with the new luxary tax, a basic salary cap that the players agreed to, changed the way teams were willing to have dead money on players. This led to lower and shorter contracts for most FA, only the age 27 to 28 free agents superstars were going to get the 8 plus year deals. The deals the 30 to 31 year olds were signing and when they turned 35 or even younger became terrible contracts. This division between the two sides has been brewing for years, and this just brought it to a head. It is not just the owners fault for this, as you seem to point out. This is both sides not willing to give anything. I have stated for years, a salary cap would be best for them, because there would be a floor and full accounting for the revenue. They can bicker over what is revenue, as players claim they should get their share of the land owned around the stadium that owners develop. Personally, I find that argument crazy. Should the players get a share of the land not owned by the owners too? I mean how many bars around Target field are filled before the games, in normal seasons, if the owners have no investment should the players still get a share because without them no games and the owners of those bars should pony up? Players point out to local own sports channels that carry the games. Not sure how media contract work, but players want the share of non-baseball content. For example, Yankees own the YES network. They have not only yankees games, but also Knicks and Rangers and other sports, much like FSN. So yes the owners of the yankees have invested into a sports channel, but why should players get value of the non-baseball revenue? The owners could have still started the channel and not carried the Yankees, should the players still get a share of if they dropped showing the Yankees? What about the teams that do not have local channels? For Twins who do not own one, despite trying to, they do not get any money from Wolves or Wild games, should players still get value there? What about non-baseball investments by the owners or no connection to the stadium, should players get anything there? The point is, where do you draw the line? The players are not victims of the owners. They could choose to try and play different sports or have different professions. The owners are not forcing them to play baseball for millions. The owners should not be expected to operate business at an extended loss simply because we want them too. How many local business close because they are losing money? How much should we expect the owners to lose before they close up? Just because the owners have values in the billions, does not mean they are liquid for that much and can just accept losing millions upon millions.

Very interesting to look at. I looked up the draft and the biggest miss, with some players still in minors being out of HS, is Walker Buehler, the second pitcher drafted from Vanderbilt. The first one being Carson Fulmer going 2 picks after Jay. Just shows how much of a crap shoot projecting players can be. There were 9 pitchers taken before Buehler, several from HS so jury still out on them, but sure most teams wish they would have taken Buehler instead of who they did.

Why must the owners make it happen? Why can the players not help make it happen? I am not taking sides of either, both have their arguments, and neither are willing to budge. Read a good article yesterday breaking down this season and the money that is at stake. About 350 million is what the two sides are fighting over. However, this is also about the past and what the next season may look like or the next CBA. It is simple to ask the owners to just say okay players to get baseball going we will pony up the 350 million. However, what happens next year if still no fans can go to games, or at a very limited amount. The players will demand full pay, just as they are this year. Then owners will again say they are losing a ton of money. The CBA comes the next year, which was already looking at strike or lockout. So both sides are thinking if we cave now, it will hurt us in the future CBA. Unlike every other league where both sides have incentive to make as much money as possible because they share in all revenue, so working together to make it happen is important. With MLB, the two sides still want to make as much money as possible, but then they get to fight over how the pie is cut. It is not spelled out how that happens. Owners say we make X, but do not release the books. Players call them liars and say even if the "team" pulls in X, you get other revenue for owning the team, or local sports stations, that is not part of what you claim to pull in. Not sure the truth of either because very little transparency. The players want their fair share, and who can blame them, they claim they are not getting it. Owners are saying they cannot operate with such loses. Over a short season it sounds like they could, but as stated above, they are worried about next season as well. They are concerned that if they agree to play games with no fans at a full prorate this year then next year they could be out even more. Maybe they can afford it and for the fans should afford it, but will the players allow the owners to recoup those losses? Most likely no, they will not care that the owners lost money for two years. I agree we need to start baseball, and I do not care which side caves. They are talking about the type of money most of us will never see in a given year. However, the divide between the two sides was so big before this. Neither side is willing to give, and now they are playing chicken and using the media, or social media to try and convince the public they are in the right. Where neither side seems to understand is, for the most part, the public does not care.

Interesting the top position players are not considered to be at top defensive positions. No clear SS or CF. I read a good article on Torkelson pointing out how 1B is almost never drafted early in first round. However, the old saying if they can hit you will find a spot for them. I wonder how much these boards would have changed had there been full college and high school seasons.

The 6th overall pick not even on a team 5 years after the pick. Just sad. I have big hopes for Kirilloff and Lewis. Larnich I think will have a good career but I am bigger on Kirilloff, if I had to pick between the two. Cavaco I do not mind the draft the athlete and hope he can make moves. I am sure he will take more time to develop, but Twins are not in a position they need to rush.

The culling of the minor leagues is about the teams cutting costs. There are so many independent college minor leagues out there that owners make enough to keep operating. Here was the Northwoods league that has grown over the last 15 years. In terms of the cutting the players, I do not know how accurate the claim that many would have been cut after spring training anyways. Not that it makes it any better. I wrote in another minors post that many of these players are not doing it for the money. However, to keep them on only to cut them in this situation, not knowing was it skill or payroll they were cut for. No way of getting signed by other teams at this point. Too late for any independent teams to jump onto, if they decide to try and have a season. I know many leagues are trying, but need the governments to allow it.

Interesting that it is the lowest of the top 30. One would think the 30th should be the lowest, but it shows what kind of a crap shoot it is. I do not have high hopes, but you never know.

I agree with all three as possible guys to get looks, IF a season happens. Another thing to factor is if the league forces the 50 game season at the full prorate, many players may opt not to play sighting health concerns. Any pending FA may think about not playing because they would not want to risk a poor season in a 50 game season having that used against them. Players set for arbitration may think similar. This could lead to more open spots.

If we have a season, I hope this happens, but mostly in the playoffs. Nothing worse then being amazing during the season only to lay and egg in the playoffs. Sure you need to make it, but when you are expecting certain performances and then do not happen, that just makes me sad.

The owners counter, which was another press leaked non offer, of 50 games is crazy for a season. It shows how serious the owners may be about limiting the players pay this year. Lets review what has been in the press. Owners come out 82 games 50-50 split. Players reaction, non-starter. Then owners formal offer 82 games with sliding scale. Players again no way. Players counter with 114 full prorated pay, with opt out for players that have family members at high risk, not clear if the family has to live with them or not. Players still would get full pay even if they do not play under that opt out, and if they are not under that then no pay. If playoffs do not happen then pay can be deferred with full interest to counter inflation, not clear what interest rate would be. Owners, response is to counter with 50 games full prorate, again not a formal counter. These two sides are so far apart. I see no way of a season happening. I had hope early on, but with how things have progressed I see no way will they reach a deal. However, it is possible the owners could force the 50 games based on what many people read the March agreement. However, players could try to sight health and safety to not have a season. If they chose to do that, most would cry BS, as they wanted more games, thus more exposure, but then when less is happening they say not safe. We all know this is a money game, and frankly do not care which side wins, I want to watch baseball end of story. At this point I would be open for full nuclear option and have two full year shut down. Then have all the MLB owners declare bankruptcy and a new league forms where none of the MLB players can play because they are in a stand off with MLB. None of the MLB owners can own either because they are in stand off with players.

Although HR were up across the board, HRs have been up over the last several years. I do not doubt the ball was juiced last year. However, the change in swings and hitting approaches have also led to more HRs. A previous article pointed out that the Twins were very efficient at hitting them as well. The real question, how many were wall scrapers. Remember Joe's MVP season so many HRs fell in left field only a couple rows back. When he went outside so many failed to reach that first or second row. However, when guys like Cruz and Sano are hitting no doubters will a less juiced ball affect them that much? Most likely not. However, I doubt there will be a 2020 season based on current discussions.

If they can make the bamboo "pop" more similar to the traditional wood bats, I think they should be adopted by NCAA and High School. I know NCAA has changed the "pop" of the bats they use to be similar to wood bats, but if you can still the feel of a wood bat but the durability of composite bat that would be great. So often the question teams have is how will the power transition to wood bats, or how will the player transition to wood bats. This would lift that question in evaluations. Also, it would appear the bats would be safer for all involved. Lucky it is not a common situation where someone is hurt by a broken bat, but every time I see a bat splinter and go flying into a crowd, something that is much less likely now with extended netting, but sometimes it could go into dug out or batting circle. I know the fear of baseball would be the ability to make sure the "pop" is not altered by players. That is how the rule of one solid piece comes in, we know, there one solid piece and can be tested. In composite bats they are certified by the maker and sold to people in stores, which mitigates the risk because the company would not want to lose possible sales by not having proper bats. However, when the sale is directly to the player like bats are, that increases the risk of not following the rules. I doubt the MLB will ever adopt it, unless there is some extreme environmental concerns for traditional bats. However, for non professional baseball it may be a good option. I know I have thought of wood bat leagues but worried of breaking the bat and the recurring cost, but having a durable light bat may make me rethink that.

I posted in a similar article not too long ago. I believe he should be in, but think it will take the vets committee to do it. The problem with the hall of fame is that it makes unfair comparisons to others in other eras, but does not look at the era the player played in. One reason many starting pitchers will have issues for awhile. Also, voters look at other things, like personality, which Joe had none of in the media. He lacked leadership and post-seasons success, which will hurt him as well. However, he was one of the best hitting catchers ever. Sure, no power compared to some, but he still was one of best hitting catchers ever. The position eventually hurt him late in his career. Which will hurt his candidacy, for some, but other will accept it is hard for catchers. Now, I do feel he was greatly overvalued as a defensive catcher. He was league average overall, and depending on the defensive evaluators you look at they agree. He was above average at throwing out runners and general covering his position. However, he never tried to pick off runners, and was terrible at blocking balls in dirt. His lack of blocking pitches led to the average defense. Sure, you can point to times he made great snags on wild pitches, every catcher does. However, so many times he would not get low and block a ball in dirt and would get under him. I also had personal issues with his approach with runners on base, but he was still a great hitting catcher, and considered top catcher for most of the years he was catching and that should be HOF worthy.

I am glad to read this. I was wondering when I heard of the minor league purge and many teams not paying beyond June. I had heard other teams but not of the Twins. It shows how they are not cheap, I pointed out they are paying above league average payroll too. This great that they are not making hundreds of more jobless people. Sure, the $400 is not that much, but they could say you lost your job, keep in mind they would not be able to collect unemployment either.

When you read about how deep some of the guys went in some of them it shows how much of a crap shoot MLB draft is really. I mean most of the time many agree on the top few or number 1, but many times they all miss. In recent memory remember Mark Appel who was drafted 8th did not sign, then 1st and did sign. Yet to make the majors at age of 25 and has not performed well in minors. Only reason he still has a job is he was drafted so high. I could go off on why I would never have drafted him, but it shows how teams miss so badly, but sometimes all teams agree that the guy is the guy. It is an imperfect science.

This was the exact situation I was thinking of. I am not one that says we need to save our guy for the 9th. I am very on board with using your top arm in 7th or 8th if the situation calls for it. However, just because May or Duffy has performed well in 7th or 8th does not mean they will do as well in the 9th. Some guys just cannot handle it on the mental side. Throw them in bases loaded in 7th and they shut it down, but put them in no one on in 9th and they fail. Some times the mental part of the 9th is too much for great pitchers to handle.

I have not been on the site all weekend, and missed the Kepler thing until now. I have talked and written so much over the last few days as it pertains to the recent events. I believe Max's post and follow up statement shows why the outrage of people involved is warranted. The lack of knowledge of the situation raises the biggest issue. Why turning a blind eye to things because it does not affect you is what leads to the issues in the first place. I could go on and on and have shed too many tiers and too many personal outrage I feel for what happened to Mr. Floyd and so many others. However, if anything positive comes from this it will be letting the uneducated know what the issues really are and shed more light on it. I strongly believe pages like this should be left to good open debate on sports where we can argue about players and other such things. Typically I would say other issues should be left to those pages. However, at times like these some issues need to be spread to all media, to all people, because the fact of the matter is, it could happen to so many people, ourselves, our family, our friends. I hope this time more happens.

I am not siding with either, I am trying my best to show both sides of the argument. The players have a very valid argument. The owners argument is the pay to the players were based on money coming in with fans coming in to games and paying ticket prices, food, and beverage prices. The insane mark up on those products. On a business standpoint, if you hire someone to do a job you are expected to pay them for the services. However, in contract world of law, there are areas where when situations that were not expected by both sides, then the contract is not fully covering because the situation is not expected by either side. I doubt anyone expected orders by governments to not allow fans in stands. Sure you can expect lower attendance from some years or hope for higher and you accept that risk a team, but when governments order no fans that is a different thing all together. That is the owners argument, they were expecting to have fans this year to get that money. They cannot now. Think of it this way. Say you contract 10 people to work a catering event that was going to have 100 people at it. Then government comes along and says you can only have 25 people at it. The workers you contracted would say well you can still have the event we deserve to get full pay for that event, despite only needing maybe 3 or 4 people for the event. The other 6 or 7 want full pay. The contract most likely did not have a clause should government not allow the full gathering this is what will happen. Both sides have a valid argument. Yes, the above situation is slightly different, but best I could think of off top of head. Also, take note of fact that there is expected to be at least 4 additional players at MLB pay level then first expected too. Again, both sides have arguments that they are right. My point is if neither is willing to give or both willing to meet in middle then no baseball and we all lose.

As I agree minor league players are underpaid, I would point out, no one is forcing these men to do it. Yes, if you hope to ever reach the majors you have to do it, but really, the players that have best chance did get a decent bonus upon signing, maybe not millions but more than what many make in a couple of years. 10th round players slot value was around 140K. Where I live that can get you by for a couple of years without making more. So as I feel for the minor league players and there low pay, it is something they choose to do. They could choose to have a different job and make more money doing something different. However, they choose to do this in hopes they will one day get the call to the majors, or because they love the game and maybe will one day get to coach it at high levels too. It is not like these men go into this blind. Everyone knows what they are getting into. It is not an easy life for low level picks, but if they have the drive and willingness they can pay off in the end. I am not going to cry for the players as they can go out and get other jobs. I want to point out this is for U.S. and Canada born players, that are subject to the draft. For the international players I feel very sorry for them. The U.S. teams cultivate third world central american and dominican countries taking children into baseball acadamies trying to poach them from their countries, many for very little money, so get the big pay day, but much of that ends up not going to them. For the low paid players they get more low pay and stuck in a country where they only know baseball English and most likely could not stay and in the country trying to get other work. So they are faced with a much different choice, then U.S. and Canada players. They are the ones we should feel for, in my opinion. Take the scraps the MLB teams throw you, or go back to your country where you most likely face violence and robberies or kidnappings because you may have money. The MLB act they are doing a favor for these kids, but really it is not that way.

Torii is a no. As good as he was for his career he was never HOF level. He was regarded for his defense, but offense gets you into the hall, defense just keeps you on the field. He should go down as one of the best to defend the outfield, he was one of the best stealing those HRs. However, he was never the feared hitter. Sure he had some good seasons hitting overall, but at least I was never thinking Torii is coming up something good will happen. Donaldson still has a career so not sure why he would be a question. If he can play at a high level into late 30's he will have a good shot at it.

I wonder if the increased pull rate was based on pitches and adjustment to them or change in approach. I have heard the approach the Twins want for Sano is to look to drive fastballs up the middle and the he should be able to pull off speed. If he is getting more off speed, and he would be staying off the outside off speed he should have increase in pull rate. I would want to see his hard hit rate to BAIP not BAIP to pull rate. I am of the stance if you hit the ball hard, unless right at someone, you will get a hit. As mentioned it is harder to do a pull shift for righty because 1st base can only go so far away from first base.

My expectation is he will not get in by normal vote, but has a chance via veteran committee. He numbers as a catcher are HOF, but when you include the injury seasons late in career he will lose votes. Also, his personality will hurt him, it should not be a factor but will be. Also the expectations of him and what people wanted him to be was never in line with what he was. What he was was great, and could be HOF, that is where vets come in.

Well, if the players agreed to 50-50 split they would share in the revenues when they are higher, but players refuse to do that. Which means they want more than a 50-50 split, or they are not willing to accept any risk for loss of fans or revenue. Of course the players do not want a cap, but that means no floor either. They want to be able to make as much money as possible, and who would blame them. However, the owners claim, no knowing how accurate it really is, is that without fans they are are expected to take a 40% budget loss. They are asking the players to take additional cuts based on fact the budget will be at a great loss. I would imagine for some ballparks the percent from gate and concessions may be lower than others and some are higher. For easy math, not an estimate of money, I will lay out how the three plans would basically work. The estimated payroll for players across the league for full pay is about 4 billion. So under prorated plan that players want they would take about 2 billion. If the ESPN estimate of 3 billion is accurate, then that means players get 2 billion of the 3 billion or 66% of the revenue pie. Owners countered with a 50 50 split, based on new economics with no fans. So the players would lose about 500 million under this, based on the estimate of 3 billion. The new plan by owners with sliding scale involves a lot more math, but would seem from what I read would be asking the players to take about 40% of the pie and even big hit to higher paid players. I believe I read the 35 mil plus guys would take only like 7 mil, or 10 mil less than prorated. but the lower paid players would have much less of a cut to salary. So that breaks down the plans. Of course the players want the top one, and owners the bottom one, but the 50 50 share seems fair, but players say is a non-starter sharing if risk of having a no fan season. If the players get their way, then the expectation is the team will cut many costs elsewhere to make up for the differnce. Now of course no need to pay people for working games or ticket sales, so they will get laid off. No need for advertising to come to games or other marketing so they will get laid off and any plans to pay for bobble heads, shirt, hats and other give aways, assuming they had not already been purchased would be dropped, so those business can lose out on that money, which could lead to those people getting laid off, or cut hours. Much of the security staff can be laid off. Since the minor league players will not be playing they will not get paid so there is savings there and they can go get a job to make up for the loss, of the little amount of money they do get paid. Now those things I mentioned may happen anyways, but many teams indicated they would still pay employees for the season, but that may change if the players need to make more money. Now of course if no revenue is coming in then this is likely to happen anyways. The point I am trying to make, as the players and owners fight, it is the little guys that suffer, and wish both would just understand how bad for the league this is. On a side note, Twins are 17th on payroll just above what is league average. League average is 136 mil Twins are at 137 mil.

I will try to be as neutral as possible when I post this. First, from what I have read, many players already like the formal proposal with the sliding scale over the revenue sharing. Do I think the purpose of this proposal was to get votes from the lower paid players that most likely need the money to live, yes I do. Do I think the players have a legitimate argument that they should get a full compensation for the contracts they signed? Sure. However, I doubt anywhere in any provision of the contract was there a clause saying, Should games be able to be played but with no fans due to pandemic situation the compensation will be X. Do the players also have a valid argument that they entered into an agreement in March on what will happen when games start back up? Yes they did and it is valid, however, the Owners also have valid argument that their understanding was this was under normal conditions. I have not seen the word for word agreement reached, but from what I have read in articles I believe both have a valid argument. It makes sense that the expectation would be a prorated pay, but when the contracts were made it was with the assumption fans would be at the games and that financials were considered when agreeing to the contract. Of course, the team assumes the risk that attendance would be down regardless, but I doubt either side would expect zero fans at all games. The players argument is they signed to play a game, regardless of how many people watched. However, they had to understand that if fans do not watch there is no reason to play the game. The players will argue the owners are trying to screw them and are greedy, well sure they are greedy, but the players also are greedy are they not? The owners are trying to look like the good guys coming to the table with options to make financial sense across the board, and players, as of now keep saying no deal we want full pay for play. Which this sounds reasonable. People who argue the owners are billionaires they can afford it, shows you have never and will never run a successful business. MLB is not a charity for entertainment for people. For the people who side with pay the players the prorated contract amount and make the owners take the hit, this means you believe business should be willing to operate at a loss, because they can and you want to keep going. Just because the owners have billions does not mean we should expect that they lose millions so we can be entertained. I mean if I ran a business at a loss, I would raise cost to public or cut internal cost, like labor costs. Else eventually I would go bankrupt. My question, how many years should owners take losses? How much should they be expected to lose? Of course we do not see their books and will never know how much they make or lose each year, but players will continue to seek the same level or higher salaries, but for all we know stadiums will never be able to operate at full capacity again, unlikely but we do not know how long reduced attendance will be required. Will players accept a cut in pay under those conditions? Maybe the players can get their prorated pays, and to make up for lost attendance revenue, we start a go fund me for the teams? I mean the real people that pay the players are the fans. Sure it comes from the owners, but it is the fans that pay, because no fans means no games. I personally would be fine with owners say no games and players get no pay. MLB could just fold up and say we are done. What would the players do then? The owners have all the power, but they understand making some money is better than no money, but if they are asked to lose money they will close and I would not hold it against them. If I ran an entertainment business and not enough people were coming to pay my bills I would either raise prices and make the people that were coming to cover my costs or I would close and have the people that were coming lose out on that entertainment. That is just how business works. Both sides do need to understand though, the more they fight over money the worse they both look and will lose fans, which will hurt both of them. While both sides fight over the pie, we are the ones that hold the pie and we can take it away from both of them. If we stop watching or going to games, when we can go again, then owners make no money, and players will make no money. We have the power, we just need to assert it.