glory

A month ago I thought there was no chance the league would actually lose games over this. Now I'm wondering just how many games will be lost. They better come to a deal by Feb 1 and start Spring Training on time.

That was my first thought. Jomboy Media got Chris Rose after he was gone from MLB Network. Not sure if Rosenthal is within their budget but the company appears to be growing and Ken is still getting FOX money either way.

He'll either be 2021 Yates or the off season bargain. The lack of QO makes me think Yates is more likely, but who knows. My guess is the Jays get Kikuchi.

Yeah, if the Mets are looking for pitching, then I don't think the Jays are a good fit with them in a trade. I wouldn't be against acquiring McNeil (he makes a lot of sense as a LH bat who can play 2B/3B), but he's had some clubhouse issues with the Mets apparently, and the Jays tend to avoid those types. I don't see a match there.

You can tell he’s a coward by writing his name as Michael. He damn well knows he’s Mike Hunt but he’s too gutless to embrace it. No wonder his ballot is blank.

The Jays have a legit chance to win the division in 2022. I don't think they risk experimenting with Gurriel at 3B for that reason, especially given how bad he looked as a 2B/SS before they moved him to the OF. Maybe give him some reps in ST to see how he looks there, but by then they probably would have already acquired a 3B. I don't think that proposed Ramirez trade would interest CLE much. They would likely have no interest in Biggio, and most of their top prospects are infielders so I'm not sure if Groshans moves the needle for them. They definitely seem to love Kirk based on recent rumors over the years, and Gurriel fills a need for them, so that part seems fine. I'd be fine with that move as proposed, but whether CLE would value that over keeping Ramirez and trying to compete in a weak division + what should be an expanded playoff format is another story. Maybe that same offer, replacing Gurriel with a prospect, would interest the D-Backs for Marte, but I don't know enough about their org needs.

If the Jays are not going to make another big FA splash (Correa/Bryant/Story), and either don't want to give up the prospects or can't find a deal for Ramirez/Marte/Chapman, then Harrison might be the next best infield option available. It depends on how you view him versus Seager, but I think I'd prefer Harrison due to his versatility. If Harrison's market is as hot as it was stated in that tweet, then I don't think he signs here to be a backup, but I agree he would be a nice utility IF for contending teams.

According to that guy's Excel sheet, Bonds and Clemens are both at 76.9% with over 13% of the ballots known. I don't like their chances of being at 75% when all votes are tabulated, but I hope they are. A HOF class of Ortiz and Rolen would still be solid though, if not completely hypocritical for Ortiz, but nothing we weren't expecting.

The NBA seems to add incremental changes every so often. They added the play-in tournament. They changed the AS game format a number of times, from having the top vote getters get to draft their team and recently to implementing the Elam Ending for the actual game. They have also made some incremental changes with defenses, hand checking, flopping, etc, every so often. The game today is much different than it was 10-20 years ago. A lot of that is due to Curry and analytics, but it wasn't just front offices changing the game, the league had a hand in it as well. Yet the only real complaints about the NBA are from older fans who grew up on Jordan era. The younger demographic loves it. I'm not the biggest Adam Silver fan, but he's not afraid of making changes, whether big or small, and I think a large part of that is owed to a younger fanbase that isn't going to complain about something "ruining the sport". The play-in tournament is absolutely ridiculous, but I didn't see anywhere near as much hatred for it as I thought I would. I can't speak on the NFL or NHL, as I don't follow either sport, but I think if Manfred takes a page out of Silver's book and starts experimenting with certain things, he won't get the type of leeway from baseball fans that Silver gets from basketball fans. The NBA has an old versus young problem. The "old heads" miss the game the way it was, while the younger kids love it. Baseball is in a weird spot where old and young don't particuarly care for the way the game is played now. At some point the league is going to have to make significant change, and if they are smart, they'll focus on trying to appease the younger fans rather than trying to appease the older ones that are probably going to stick around regardless.

Yeah the deals being brought up here are mostly FA deals. A 10-12 year deal for Vlad would take him through age 32-34. There is still obviously risk with any deal for that length of time, but it's not the same type of risk as signing him to 10-12 years at age 26.

Agreed. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but baseball fans are definitely last to accept change. Maybe it's because the fanbase tends to lean on the older side as a whole, but it's remarkable that a league like the NBA practically makes changes to their league every year (on and off court) and it's never seen as a big deal, but MLB wants to implement putting up 4 fingers to signify an intentional walk to speed the game up a tiny bit and fans lose their minds. I agree, for baseball to truly improve, they can't worry about offending the diehard fan. Most of this board hated the runner on 2nd rule, but it didn't stop them from watching. That's going to be the case for all existing fans. If you're a diehard, then you'll either grow to like or grow to accept any change made. I would be fine with 7 innings being the new norm (those doubleheaders tended to fly by and less time for games would make a huge difference), but I'd like to see them exhaust all options for improving the pace of a 9 inning game. Maybe that's not possible, but implementing a pitch clock and limiting P's on the roster could shave enough dead time to a more manageable level where people aren't complaining about how long the games are. Most of the time I don't think it's the game length that bothers people but rather the pace of it. Since baseball doesn't have a clock, games could last 4 hours even if it had a lightning pace to it, but those 4 hours might breeze by in that scenario, at least compared to what we see now.

Yeah, the owners have already offered a floor ($100m) that had a $180m luxury tax (with stricter penalties for going over), which is basically a salary cap without calling it one, and the MLBPA does not want a salary cap. The current luxury tax threshold acts as a soft cap now anyway and I'm sure the players are fighting to either eliminate that (unlikely) or increase it (more likely but without a floor). I wish they'd just agree to a salary cap, split the revenue, have a floor/cap, and be done with it. The NFL and NBA are printing money with that model. The free market that the MLBPA desires so much benefits probably 2% of the players in the league. But as long as they are against a salary cap, I think what they end up agreeing to is a just a more player friendly version of the current system. Increased league minimum, arb after year 2, and incentives/bonuses for pre-arb players who have great seasons. Anything more complicated than that, and I would be surprised.

Expanded playoffs and universal DH are probably the only two things that are guaranteed to come out of this. Everything else is just who bargains better (and judging by history, I'll bet on the side that doesn't have Tony Clark on it to get the better deal).

Ortiz and Cruz both kind of had some help in the aging process, but of course no one knows the answer to "when will Vlad decline". I was just taking a player who he's been compared to as a hitter and used that as a quick example. Vlad could decline at 34, 28, 39, or any number of ages. Who the heck knows. I think somewhere between 32-35 is a safe bet, though.

Tatis got 14/340. My guess is that's what Vlad's reps will use as a starting point on a deal, and they have no reason to settle for less since he has 4 non-cheap years of arbitration remaining. So even if he goes year to year, he's going to be making pretty decent money over the next 4 years and then can line himself up for a massive 10+ year deal at age 26. A 14 year deal would take Vlad through age 36. If you want to use Miguel Cabrera as a comparison, his last great season was at age 33, and he began to fall of a cliff at age 34. So if you assume Vlad's decline begins around the same time, then there would be a few dead money years at the end, but having him for his entire prime would likely more than make up for it.

The MLB proposal was apparently universal free agency at age 29.5. Service time was not factored in. If it was factored in, then I'm guessing the MLBPA would have actually liked it.

My knees hurt just watching Romano do those squats/bends before every pitch. Not surprised at all.

Another thing to keep in mind is expanded playoffs is almost certainly going to happen (either 12 teams or 14 teams). In the normal 10 team format, maybe going for a grand slam trade to build a short term monster (especially in the AL East) would have made some sense, but I don't think it will after the CBA is finalized. It's going to be a bit easier to build a sustainable contender with more playoff spots, and the only time to really worry about going "all in" in a 12-14 team playoff format would be at the trade deadline when adding incremental wins to avoid a WC round would make a huge difference (assuming top seed gets a bye to the DS). Trading for Ramirez is fine. Don't have to do an Alomar/Carter redux though. Trade for Ramirez, sign a LHB like Brad Miller to DH against RHP, and they are likely set offensively while still having money left over to sign another SP.

I don't know if that's true or not, but if they add another big FA contract that extends past 2025, then you might be on to something. Right now, the combo of Gausman, Springer, and Berrios will make $63.5m combined in 2026. Of course, Gausman and Springer come off the books right after that, and Berrios has a player option after that, but tack on another $25m AAV deal on top of that (ex. Bryant), and you're looking at nearly $90m for 4 players in their 30's in 2026 without even factoring anyone else. I think they are fine after Gausman, but one more big FA deal, and it gets a bit tight financially, depending on what the CBA looks like.

Matz wasn't given the QO because he isn't a $18m a year starter. He's more in the $10-12m AAV range and the Jays likely knew he was going to accept the QO for that reason. Rodon is the type of SP you give the QO to. The fact that he didn't get one is the part that teams should be very careful about.

The White Sox not offering the QO is definitely something to watch out for with Rodon. Since he's repped by Boras, he likely would have declined it, so the White Sox didn't even want to risk a 1/18 deal on the off chance that he accepted. That's a huge red flag. If the Sox were shedding payroll or rebuilding/tanking, then it would have made more sense, but they just made the playoffs and look to be on the verge of a decent sized run. I'd double and triple check Rodon's medicals before even offering him anything. He's probably a real possibility given that teams are likely to be scared off a bit by his injury history, so his price may fall, but you don't want a more expensive Kirby Yates situation next year. I think Kikuchi is a strong possibility.

If I'm remembering correctly, I believe MLB's proposal was a floor of $100m and the luxury tax threshold at $180m, which was effectively a salary cap without calling it one by name, and MLBPA for some reason would rather the sport die than accept a salary cap. Free agency at age 29.5 is nice for college draft picks who come up at age 24-25, or late bloomers, but someone like Vlad would be a free agent after the 2028 season, which would give the Jays 10 years of control over him. I would imagine the arbitration years in that scenario would be the equivalent to FA money anyway, but no chance players are going to agree to a deal where teams get more than the 6 years of control they already get. My guess is owners won't budge on 6 years of control, and the players won't accept a floor with a low CBT threshold, which means they'll have to figure out a way for players to make more during years 0-6 within the current framework. Increase the minimum, arb after year 2, and bonuses/incentives for minimum earners who perform at a high level seems to be the only real solutions. I would imagine that's what the next CBA will look like for the most part.

If the Jays were to sign Suzuki (I'm dubious of that source but whatever, hypothetically) then I think they would keep Gurriel and Hernandez, and just use DH as a bit of a revolving door. If the team didn't trade Gurriel the past two years when his value (due to years of control) was much higher, then I think they view him as a core piece. Suzuki doesn't really fit the team's needs, though. A RH corner OF with unclear performance expectations in a season when the team intends to seriously contend seems unlikely unless they really, really like him and think he's going to be a star right away. I guess it's possible they feel that way. There doesn't appear to be a cost effective LH bat that could be signed in free agency, so going for the best available RH (assuming that's how they view him) would make sense. Damn stupid lockout means we have to wait a long time before we find out.

Grichuk for JBJ made a lot of sense, and was just about salary neutral. Even if you hate JBJ, he's LH, can play CF at a high level, and is likely going to bounce back offensively after this s*** season. A much better 4th OF fit for this roster, although Charlie would have found a way to play him everyday, I'm sure.

It's not a necessity to move him, but they could balance the roster out better if they moved him for someone who fills an org need (ex. 3B, SP). The only other option would be to start him at DH and let him catch on the days when they want to use the DH spot for one of the on field regulars. That could work, and it's probably a decent option considering how good of a hitter Kirk projects to be, but it comes down to whether that scenario has more value to the team than whatever Kirk could bring back in a trade.