Vixen Twins watch Wild Wolves and Loony Lynx (MN Sports Thread)

[JDBrocks]

Just now, swede700 said:

That doesn't address the point.  That's all fine and dandy that the Pirates have advanced in the postseason.  In the last 32 years, they've made the playoffs 6 times.  They've been .500 (or within 5 games of .500) 11 times in that same 32 years.  In those same categories, the Orioles were 5 and 14. 

 The Rays are one of the true success stories, but they are more the exception than the rule.  You clearly don't view it an issue, that's fine. There certainly are bigger issues than it (most notably the problems with how the sport is played itself), but it's still an issue and will be until it's meaningfully addressed. 

The owners COULD spend money. There's no reason that any ownership group can't pay for players or be competitive under the current rules - they choose not to. The As don't have play moneyball, they choose to because it's a business venture and not a competitive endeavor. I think a salary floor would be more helpful than a cap. There's no excuse to have a payroll under 50 million dollars with a franchise valuation over a billion dollars. As in every sport, I'm all for players being able to make as much money as they possibly can at an individual level. Don't restrict that because 1/3rd of the league has owners that don't care about the sport. Jerry Reinsdorf once said something to the effect of "Always come in 2nd, it tells the fans that you're in it, but they always have something more to look forward to". 

[swede700]

That's certainly one way to help improve it...the NFL actually has both, and I do think that MLB should as well.  Always have.  And I agree that players should make as much as they can, but reasonability has to be employed.  The Yankees can pay an exorbitant amount of money to a (what may turn out to be) mediocre player to eliminate their competition for said player and not suffer any long-term consequences since they'll simply write it off.  That's monopolistic behavior (within a monopolistic sport) and ruins competition.

That's basically what happened here with the Correa deal. Sure, an owner theoretically could pay any amount of money to a player...Elon Musk could have paid $2B for Twitter, does that make it reasonable in any sense?  The Pohlads could have matched the 13-yr deal, but if it didn't work out, they don't have the ability to just write it off like the Giants can, as they don't have the revenue that the Giants have (who over the term of Correa's deal will generate $1.3B more than the Twins will).       

[JDBrocks]

I mean that's just not the reality of what is happening in the sport.

Every single team except for the Marlins and Pirates increased value by 11% minimum last year. There are owners that pay more to win and owners that don't to make money. I don't see the argument here:

1. Teams are making more money than ever
2. Every single owner/ownership group has the money to go out and be competitive in signing players
3. 13 of the 30 franchises have been in a World Series over the past 10 years, and not just the upper echelon payroll teams.

I'm not saying that I would hate a salary cap, but it's not realistic. I can see MLBPA asking for a floor though. Forcing teams that are making money hand over fist to increase payroll will do way more to improve the competitive landscape of the MLB than capping it will.

[Heimdallr]

10 minutes ago, swede700 said:

The Yankees can pay an exorbitant amount of money to a (what may turn out to be) mediocre player to eliminate their competition for said player and not suffer any long-term consequences since they'll simply write it off.  That's monopolistic behavior (within a monopolistic sport) and ruins competition.

Sounds like what MLB really needs is promotion/relegation. 

[swede700]

Just now, Heimdallr said:

Sounds like what MLB really needs is promotion/relegation. 

I did originally have that Premier League idea in one of my posts initially but ended up deleting it out.  🤣

In the end though, I just don't think you can have a situation where you have a handful of teams that can just pay their way out of bad choices.  JD doesn't agree...that's fine.  I don't think we'll ever agree on that point, although I do agree that there should be a floor because you can't have a situation where a team just isn't interested in being truly competitive and solely just wants to make money. 

I don't believe the Pohlads are that, never have.  I think they want to be competitive and will pay, but they will only do so within reason and I can't fault them for that.  They have their issues and have deserved some criticism in the past, but they have acted responsibly within what I believe to be a difficult system to compete consistently in. 

I also believe the expansion of the playoffs has helped somewhat, despite some criticism that it demeans the regular season when it actually does the opposite.  It masks over some of the financial inequities because more teams have a greater shot later in the season. 

The prime example of the NFL is the Washington franchise...when they were spending hand over fist to several players (Albert Haynesworth was one) who probably didn't deserve that kind of money, they paid for it over the long-term (would have paid more for it longer yet were it not for the uncapped year which they ended up getting penalized for).  If some of these teams in MLB were penalized on the field somehow for their poor choices, that would mitigate it, but they really aren't.  They just write another check to some other player to replace them.  

[PrplChilPill]

3 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

Flashbacks to the Parise/Suter deals. Go spend that money on a pitcher now.

Other than Rodon, who wants six or seven years, who?

[PrplChilPill]

50 minutes ago, swede700 said:

That's certainly one way to help improve it...the NFL actually has both, and I do think that MLB should as well.  Always have.  And I agree that players should make as much as they can, but reasonability has to be employed.  The Yankees can pay an exorbitant amount of money to a (what may turn out to be) mediocre player to eliminate their competition for said player and not suffer any long-term consequences since they'll simply write it off.  That's monopolistic behavior (within a monopolistic sport) and ruins competition.

That's basically what happened here with the Correa deal. Sure, an owner theoretically could pay any amount of money to a player...Elon Musk could have paid $2B for Twitter, does that make it reasonable in any sense?  The Pohlads could have matched the 13-yr deal, but if it didn't work out, they don't have the ability to just write it off like the Giants can, as they don't have the revenue that the Giants have (who over the term of Correa's deal will generate $1.3B more than the Twins will).       

If you can afford ten years ,285, you can afford 13, 350...... It's a choice. I don't begrudge that choice, but it's a choice. 

[swede700]

1 minute ago, PrplChilPill said:

Other than Rodon, who wants six or seven years, who?

I don't think in any sport, which only takes up a small portion of any person's full life, that any contract should be more than 6 or 7 years.  While the player gets a guaranteed salary, they are also giving up any ability to make more money and in the teams case, they are on the hook for that money for that long if it fails...but, hey when you have the ability to write another check, I guess so be it.  😉

[swede700]

3 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

If you can afford ten years ,285, you can afford 13, 350...... It's a choice. I don't begrudge that choice, but it's a choice. 

And it probably would have hamstrung them on other choices if he had agreed.  So it's probably a plus that he didn't.  🤣

[PrplChilPill]

3 minutes ago, swede700 said:

And it probably would have hamstrung them on other choices if he had agreed.  So it's probably a plus that he didn't.  🤣

Like what? They won't sign elite players. There aren't any difference makers out there for small money. What choice is it hamstringing? 

[JDBrocks]

9 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

If you can afford ten years ,285, you can afford 13, 350...... It's a choice. I don't begrudge that choice, but it's a choice. 

I wouldn't have paid a 65 million dollar premium. a 10 year deal is a legitimate offer, but the players are almost always going to err on the side of financial security. I think the Twins' path forward is either signing Swanson and Rodon (I'm not on board with 6+ years for Rodon either with his track record), or being active in the trade market again. Pablo Lopez would be a nice fit here.

If they can sign Swanson and trade for Lopez, that's a good offseason. I'd imagine it would cost Arraez and prospects. you'd go into next season with this rotation:

Lopez
Gray
Mahle
Ryan
Maeda

and a bullpen of 
Jax
Lopez
Alcala
Theilbar
Moran
Megill
Duran
Winder

That would be the best the pitching staff has looked since I don't remember when.

Edited December 14, 2022 by JDBrocks

[swede700]

3 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

Like what? They won't sign elite players. There aren't any difference makers out there for small money. What choice is it hamstringing? 

I don't know what the difference makers are, but my first guess is that it would have hamstrung their ability to improve the pitching staff (most notably the relievers)(, which is exactly what has plagued that team (from what I understand).  

[VikeManDan]

Just now, PrplChilPill said:

Other than Rodon, who wants six or seven years, who?

I'm not a big baseball guy so I couldn't offer any suggested targets.

[JDBrocks]

4 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I don't know what the difference makers are, but my first guess is that it would have hamstrung their ability to improve the pitching staff (most notably the relievers)(, which is exactly what has plagued that team (from what I understand).  

It's been injuries that have plagued the team more than anything. The Twins lost more time to the IL than any team in baseball by a significant margin last year.

[vikesfan89]

I'd be curious to see what percentage of each teams grow income goes to payroll.  I feel like the twins usury aim for around 50%? I wonder how much is left after paying the front office and all of the other expenses