94 replies to this topic

[Han Joelo]

 

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high. 

Make it 11.  Woohoo!  I took something to eleven.  Anyway, what if you change 'leap of faith" to "calculated risk?"  How about then?  Depending on your definition of success, a business predicated upon attempting to be the 1 in 30 that can truly be considered a success each year seems like a bad business to be in in the first place.

[Carole Keller]

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high.

First of all, you are once again injecting your same old post, as you do whenever someone suggests aggressiveness, that they need a lesson in business without relating it to anything in this thread let alone anything with the Twins. You’ve been told to stop doing that. If you have something specific to add about the Twins or this thread, great. But don’t take it down the path of generalities of ‘You don’t know how businesses works.’ Because it’s my post, I’m not going to hide yours or assess a point, but if it had been anyone else’s, I would have.

Secondly, I haven’t really laid out a plan, but this team has a lot of flexibility to go big. I’m not talking about a $200million payroll here, but they could spend equal to what they did last year and it would still be aggressive because they have that much flexibility. It’s disappointing for me to hear they didn’t even try for Thor, that they won’t be in on Machado (even though I know he probably wouldn’t have signed here anyway), and that they picked up Cron (ugh) as that shows me once again they have no serious plans to compete and I think they are missing an opportunity. Further, Pohlad seems to be laying out the excuse that it’s Sano’s and Buxton’s fault. Great way to say you don’t believe in them to put anyone really good around them and just go with average or less than average. Good way to lose your biggest source of revenue ... the fans ... and that can’t be smart, either. And good way to set in motion the possibility of two great players walking at the first opportunity. Maybe we’ll be happy with that, but there is still a very reasonable chance we won’t. But, the off season isn’t over, so I’ll give them leeway to see what we have in March, but I’m not holding my breath.

Third, you don’t need to manage manage my disappointment by trying to dash my hopes. I’m an older adult and know how hope and disappointment work. However, I do happen to think that ‘hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.’

Calculated risk ... great way to put it. Thanks, Han Joelo.

[Major League Ready]

 

Just think of the deals the Twins could have done if they traded Buxton when he was #1 prospect in the game. Now look what we have, an injury prone outfielder that spends more time on DL than playing.

 

Same could be said about Gordon. One of the Twins top prospects and top 25-40 in the game and now where would you place him?

 

Prospects should be used to acquire proven talent if you are a contending team. A prospect has maybe a 10-15% chance to succeed.

 

I don’t think we can make this type of blank statement. For starters, “in contention” is a relative term and a team’s willingness to part with prospects (defined as top prospects) depends on their relative position in terms of contention. Obviously, the Red Sox, Yankees, Astros, Athletics, Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Brewers and Cubs are in a window of contention. Several other teams are relative close but teams like the mariners are opting to tear down. Chicago tore down with a more proven roster than the Twins have now and they had a legit ace with 3 years of control

You also have to consider the revenue of any given team. The lower the revenue the more necessary it is to retain low cost talent. Will, Tampa, a 90 win team, be willing to trade away top prospects? Very doubtful. When have they EVER? They never do purely from a business requirement prospective. Oakland and Tampa have generally traded away established talent, even top talent (Price) because of their need for low cost talent.

 

Even the highest revenue teams have been very reluctant to trade top prospects. Theo Epstein was unwilling to trade Bellinger / Buehler / Urias etc. and he has been quite consistent in his unwillingness to trade top prospects even though they are clearly in contention. How about the Yankees? Were they willing to deal Sanchez when they had an established veteran? Were they willing to deal Severino? No, The Yankees have not been inclined to give up elite prospects. They have actually benefited more from trading for prospects than trading away prospects. Stanton did not cost elite prospects because of the salary attached to Stanton. Sheffield is an exception and the circumstances are extreme. They have assembled a 100 win team but need SP if they are going to have a chance to win their division and compete deep into the playoffs.

Boston is the one team that has ponied up top prospects but of course they were able to do this because they were stacked with young talent and also able to spend $200M+ in payroll. They are also in a position to sustain a team that is among the most dominant in MLB history. That is a mile away from the Twins situation.

 

Three points come to mind when looking at the trends around the league.

1) Even very rich teams that are clearly in contention are very reluctant to give up top talent. History is very clear in this matter.

2) 2) Below average revenue teams are even less inclined and teams that are not probable contenders also are much less inclined to trade top prospects.

3) The Twin’s scenario is not remotely in a similar scenario to the teams that have traded top prospects. Those teams are top contenders and we are a relative long shot. Low cost players are more important to a team with the twin’s revenue and we are a long way from comparable in terms of being an established contender.

[birdwatcher]

 

Just think of the deals the Twins could have done if they traded Buxton when he was #1 prospect in the game. Now look what we have, an injury prone outfielder that spends more time on DL than playing.

 

Same could be said about Gordon. One of the Twins top prospects and top 25-40 in the game and now where would you place him?

 

Prospects should be used to acquire proven talent if you are a contending team. A prospect has maybe a 10-15% chance to succeed.

 

 

Your final statement is a generalization that is not factual and that doesn't hold water. The statistical probabilities of success for an elite prospect are higher by multiples.

 

You use two examples that perhaps support your case. Why leave out examples that don't? Do you think the theoretical trade value for Benintendi, Machado, Syndegaard, or Harper would have exceeded the value they delivered?

 

That said, I was all for having them dangle Gordon out there, because he is a surplus asset IMO.

 

Every potential deal has to be weighed on its merits. But it's important to recognize that when these evaluators project the value of a player into the future, they know their software and video doesn't make a calculation that's worth a whole lot. The decision is a bet.

 

The reason Lewis is untouchable is because evaluators are betting he's a Barry Larkin type guy.

[Major League Ready]

 

Make it 11.  Woohoo!  I took something to eleven.  Anyway, what if you change 'leap of faith" to "calculated risk?"  How about then?  Depending on your definition of success, a business predicated upon attempting to be the 1 in 30 that can truly be considered a success each year seems like a bad business to be in in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success. 

[Vanimal46]

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success.

Let's start with contending in the AL Central. If Cleveland continues to sell off MLB assets to shave payroll, it may take 85-90 wins to win the division. Even with several key players under performing the Twins won 78 games. With status quo, and Buxton/Sano playing better than last year, they are probably projected to be an 82-85 win team. The hill is not that steep to climb into contention.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success. 

 

Moves made to add long term MLB talent this year help for next year, and the year after, if not longer. Never adding MLB talent on long term deals is why the team isn't in a better position this year than last off season, because they added almost no one at all that would be here in 2019....unless you love the cheap but efficient Odo, Reed, and Pineda deals (they'll all be gone after this year, opening 3 more holes). Never adding long term MLB deals in trade or FA is a self fulfilling prophecy for not having any talent on the roster. And then, hey, ,they aren't close, so they shouldn't add talent!

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don’t think we can make this type of blank statement. For starters, “in contention” is a relative term and a team’s willingness to part with prospects (defined as top prospects) depends on their relative position in terms of contention. Obviously, the Red Sox, Yankees, Astros, Athletics, Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Brewers and Cubs are in a window of contention. Several other teams are relative close but teams like the mariners are opting to tear down. Chicago tore down with a more proven roster than the Twins have now and they had a legit ace with 3 years of control

You also have to consider the revenue of any given team. The lower the revenue the more necessary it is to retain low cost talent. Will, Tampa, a 90 win team, be willing to trade away top prospects? Very doubtful. When have they EVER? They never do purely from a business requirement prospective. Oakland and Tampa have generally traded away established talent, even top talent (Price) because of their need for low cost talent.

 

Even the highest revenue teams have been very reluctant to trade top prospects. Theo Epstein was unwilling to trade Bellinger / Buehler / Urias etc. and he has been quite consistent in his unwillingness to trade top prospects even though they are clearly in contention. How about the Yankees? Were they willing to deal Sanchez when they had an established veteran? Were they willing to deal Severino? No, The Yankees have not been inclined to give up elite prospects. They have actually benefited more from trading for prospects than trading away prospects. Stanton did not cost elite prospects because of the salary attached to Stanton. Sheffield is an exception and the circumstances are extreme. They have assembled a 100 win team but need SP if they are going to have a chance to win their division and compete deep into the playoffs.

Boston is the one team that has ponied up top prospects but of course they were able to do this because they were stacked with young talent and also able to spend $200M+ in payroll. They are also in a position to sustain a team that is among the most dominant in MLB history. That is a mile away from the Twins situation.

 

Three points come to mind when looking at the trends around the league.

1) Even very rich teams that are clearly in contention are very reluctant to give up top talent. History is very clear in this matter.

2) 2) Below average revenue teams are even less inclined and teams that are not probable contenders also are much less inclined to trade top prospects.

3) The Twin’s scenario is not remotely in a similar scenario to the teams that have traded top prospects. Those teams are top contenders and we are a relative long shot. Low cost players are more important to a team with the twin’s revenue and we are a long way from comparable in terms of being an established contender.

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

[Carole Keller]

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

I know fans who used to go to a lot of games completely skip the season last year. Why? Because why go? And I'm there, too. At this point I'm not even excited to go to ST ... even when I'm already going to be in Fort Myers anyway. Why bother? To me that doesn't seem to be a way to run a business ... run off a big chunk of your revenue source.

[Major League Ready]

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

 

You did not even remotely address the three points made. Are those points true or untrue? Are you really of the opinion revenue level does not matter in a teams willingness to part with top prospects? Is what I wrote about the Dodgers and Yankees inaccurate? Is the Twins competitive position even close to that of the teams that have traded top prospects in the past few years? Is Seattle not tearing down an 89 win team?

 

Lots of questions for you to address directly and you elect to respond with an answer that completely neglects all of them.

Edited by Major League Ready, 04 December 2018 - 01:14 PM.

[laloesch]

 

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success. 

 

Perhaps Falvey and levine realize that the team is not really as close to being competitive as they thought heading into 2018.If Polanco had not been suspended and Sano, Buxton, Dozier & Morrison not totally stunk last season they might have though differently.But on offense this team took a huge step backwards last season and mostly on Offense. 

[Major League Ready]

 

I know fans who used to go to a lot of games completely skip the season last year. Why? Because why go? And I'm there, too. At this point I'm not even excited to go to ST ... even when I'm already going to be in Fort Myers anyway. Why bother? To me that doesn't seem to be a way to run a business ... run off a big chunk of your revenue source.

 

Tampa's revenue has increased steadily for the past 15-20 years. However, making it to the world series in 2008 had minimal impact on revenue. Seems to me they understand how to run their business just fine.

 

https://www.statista...ays-since-2006/

 

Edited by Major League Ready, 04 December 2018 - 01:24 PM.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You did not even remotely address the three points made. Are those points true or untrue? Are you really of the opinion revenue level does not matter in a teams willingness to part with top prospects? Is what I wrote about the Dodgers and Yankees inaccurate? Is the Twins competitive position even close to that of the teams that have traded top prospects in the past few years? Is Seattle not tearing down an 89 win team?

 

Lots of questions for you to address directly and you elect to respond with an answer that completely neglects all of them.

 

I've never disagreed that revenue matters or not. Never. Not one time. I've never asked them to spend as much as Boston or NYY or whatever. Never.

 

But TB doesn't win anything because they never trade for MLB talent, or sign FAs. Which is what I'm asking the Twins to do. The Twins spent 125MM or whatever last year. They have less than 50MM committed after 2019. They have plenty of money to bring in long term assets.

 

Only signing players to 1 year deals means you have to fill those holes again and again and again. Signing great players to longer deals means that if Sano and Buxton are good, you have something when Kiriloff joins them, or Lewis. Or, you can never add great players, even when you have tens of millions of dollars of self imposed cap space, until the stars perfectly align and the team is already championships caliber (by never trading prospects or spending big), and they only need 1 more piece. That, of course, rarely happens for any team. 

[Vanimal46]

Do people still want Eovaldi at this price?

[Twins33]

Do people still want Eovaldi at this price?

Thats quite a jump. Seems more like a 10-12M per kind of guy.