Windows, 2020 Vision, and Tight Purse Strings

[alskntwnsfn]

As spring draws near, it's time to reflect on the winter that was and look ahead to another season full of hope and promise. I've been thinking a lot about several things and am curious to hear thoughts from the TD community.

 

The Twins Window (2020?)

 

It was great to watch young Twins hitters emerge last year but with four super teams in the AL, we have to consider when is our best window? The core of our offense is still pretty young. Historically, players peak around age 27. For Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Polanco, and Kepler, that puts our offensive peak around 2020. A lot can happen between now and then, but that's 5/9 of our lineup that was very good in 2017 at ages 23-25. The offensive talent coming up in the 2019 free agent class is impressive. Rich teams like the Yankees and Red Sox may even be better in 2019, but our lineup could be very formidable from 2018 to 2023 at least.

 

Of course, now one is punting on 2018 or 2019. We've got a chair and more than a few chips, but looking at 2020 and beyond... a mature core of young hitters could be a dominant force. Combine that with a front office who knows how to develop a pitching staff, and I'm very excited for the future of this club - I'm just not sure if that future will come as soon as we'd like. I hope success comes sooner, but realistically, we may have to wait a bit longer. So let's not get down if we continue to fall short of NYY, BOS, CLE, and HOU. Those are just very strong teams at the moment.

 

The 2017/2018 Offseason

 

There's been a lot of consternation about the lack of big deals handed out this offseason. Hosmer and Martinez got paid, but the exponential growth in spending definitely took a step back this year and it makes you ask what's going on?

 

I hope the answer to this riddle is that ownership among the big market teams are simply saving their chips for 2019. I also wonder if they are maybe looking at the new tax code changes and saying, now is the time to take some profit without having to pay as much back in taxes. This seems like the most likely explanation, that and this year's class just wasn't overwhelming overall.

 

But could there be other explanations? Remember these clubs are run by people who have way more information at their disposal than your average rube. Is this newfound austerity a signal of fear that an economic recession could be looming? The economy is doing pretty well and I think a downturn would be unexpected to many of us, but again, there's that nagging question... do they know something we don't?

[beckmt]

Remember that all of this Twins class will not have to be here after 2021.  Twins need to get some deals done, so we know what we will have.  From all I have seen Sano does not seem to want to sign here (that explains some of the trade rumors).  So we need to be allocating payroll and making our plans. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Historically, players peak around age 27. For Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Polanco, and Kepler, that puts our offensive peak around 2020.

I think this is a mis-use of peak/aging data. That peak age is an average over thousands of players -- it is not very likely that a subset of 5 guys will match it with any useful precision.  Imagine if the average marriage age of your school's alumni was 27, and you were looking at a group of 5 of your friends. Very unlikely you will get 5 weddings in one year! You might not even get one.

 

And even looking at an age range -- say, age 26-28 is "peak" -- a single season is a small enough sample, that it's quite possible you won't be able to distinguish peak talent from normal statistical variation. Age 25 could look just as good as age 28, etc.

 

The Twins had the 4th best run scoring offense in the AL last year, and 4th in wRC+ too. It would be unwise to plan on them being even better 3 years from now, to any meaningful degree. They need better pitching (only 9th in run allowed per game, 11th in FIP-), and they need it now or they risk wasting more good offensive performances.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So let's not get down if we continue to fall short of NYY, BOS, CLE, and HOU. Those are just very strong teams at the moment.

True, but at the same time, I don't think we should let the last ~15 years of Twins history skew our perspective. Great MLB teams don't automatically beat good ones, especially in single games or short series. I understand you're not advocating "punting" but there is no reason we can't compete with the "big boys" today -- maybe not for 100 regular season wins, but definitely for a spot in the postseason and a chance of advancement.

 

I think we have to aim to build a 85-90 game winner rather than a .500 team hoping for some breaks, and we should prioritize single-game and short series effectiveness rather than just 162 game survival (i.e. the difference between one 4 WAR starting pitcher, and four 1 WAR starting pitchers).

[ashbury]

I guess I have to join the crowd of voices taking issue with the overall concept. Once you have a core, plan to take the best advantage of whoever has a career year or thereabout - and in a season where two or three happen to all do that, make sure they were already surrounded with a good supporting cast - and you can't know that until you are well into the season, so that means just keep acquiring assets. 2016 may turn out to be an aberration that obscured that the window opened a little while ago. But it's open now, and stands a good chance of remaining open for several years, so I would not bother trying to pinpoint one "peak" season, and instead strive to improve every year, until it reaches a point where you're just trying to plug holes that arise on an already-very good team. That, at any rate, would be my high-level plan for a team like this for the coming half a decade or so.

[Mike Sixel]

I think people also need to take into account the teams around the Twins, not just the Twins.

 

The White Sox, for example, are what, one year behind the Twins in the "rebuild that wasn't"? Maybe 2? OTOH, unless Cleveland is better at sustaining excellence than other small/mid-market teams, they should be dropping off in 2-4 years. 

 

IMO, this next 3-5 years is a very good window for this team. But, Dozier and ESan aren't getting younger, nor is Mauer or Castro. They need to find/develop pitching.

[alskntwnsfn]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we punt on 2018 or 2019. We are probably going to have a pretty good offense and the key is making the playoffs, then anything can happen. So I like our chances in the next couple years, but if pressed to pick one year in which to push all the chips in the middle, I'm not sure this would be that year. So in that context, I'm fine with them not getting a big ticket FA pitcher this offseason if they are not confident that guy will be a front line ace in 2020. However, at some point in the next five years I DO WANT TO SEE THIS ORGANIZATION GO ALL IN.

[bird]

My theory about the FO's decisions is that they don't believe in the whole "Window" idea, nor should they. I believe their strategy is to develop the proper supportive infrastructure to generate sustainable, long-term success. Infrastructure includes people, capital, physical facilities, systems, and technology.

 

I believe they'd describe sustained long-term success to mean shortening the cycles between your worst results and your best results, and flattening the cycle as well, i.e. avoiding 100 loss troughs. The key to this is a build-up of assets, the primary asset of course being player and prospect talent. The reason that window-based decisions are ineffective is that we're dealing with an incredibly volatile and unpredictable asset.

 

The other teams aren't standing still either. In baseball terms, 2020 is a light year away. Let's take CWS as an example of why Falvey is going to just keep churning as best he can and isn't thinking for one second about shooting for 2020 or some other window. Eloy Jiminez, Luis Robert, and Micker Adolfo are joined in spring training, right now, by Moncado, the #1 prospect in all of baseball a year ago. Sox fans are salivating as they watch those four, or watch the bullpen sessions of Kopech, and Alec Hansen, and others. With this kind of formidable competition tailgating him right this minute, Falvey doesn't have the luxury, and maybe the assets, to try to time a push. It just doesn't work that way.

 

CWS isn't the only threat. Both Cleveland and Detroit. like CWS, have more pitching prospects than we do who "project" to be front line starters. Of course, these projections are fairly suspect (Gibson was a #2, and Berrios was a #3 at best). But I'm confident that Falvey has the entire baseball organization focused on simply adding and developing assets, so that his smaller group can then continue to do enough horse trading over time to maintain above-average asset values at all levels of the organization. His hope and plan, IMO, is to be an early adopter of new information, technology, and knowledge so that they can secure some small advantage over the competition, knowing that it's an uphill climb, particularly against the organizations enjoying double the annual revenue.

[ashbury]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we punt on 2018 or 2019. We are probably going to have a pretty good offense and the key is making the playoffs, then anything can happen. So I like our chances in the next couple years, but if pressed to pick one year in which to push all the chips in the middle, I'm not sure this would be that year. So in that context, I'm fine with them not getting a big ticket FA pitcher this offseason if they are not confident that guy will be a front line ace in 2020. However, at some point in the next five years I DO WANT TO SEE THIS ORGANIZATION GO ALL IN.

I understand the point but still disagree. I think it's a mistake to pinpoint one season as the best chance. Once the window of contention has opened, you just don't know.

 

Also I think I never want to see the organization go all in, because I dislike the feast-or-famine that it presumes. But I'm not one who measures success only by a World Series win, and I also believe that going all in increases your chance by that yardstick by only a little, while delaying the arrival of the next contending core. But that said, I want the team to spend money every year, at a level that requires successful attendance and all that comes with it; failure should be a little painful.

[Vanimal46]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we punt on 2018 or 2019. We are probably going to have a pretty good offense and the key is making the playoffs, then anything can happen. So I like our chances in the next couple years, but if pressed to pick one year in which to push all the chips in the middle, I'm not sure this would be that year. So in that context, I'm fine with them not getting a big ticket FA pitcher this offseason if they are not confident that guy will be a front line ace in 2020. However, at some point in the next five years I DO WANT TO SEE THIS ORGANIZATION GO ALL IN.

It's impossible to predict how good this team or any other team will be 3 years from now. Injuries, regression, players never reaching their potential, there's just too many variables to know.

 

I think the window is open right now, and I'd like the FO to keep supplementing the team when luck and health are on their side.

 

If the lineup is healthy and good like last season, I'll certainly be cheering for them to go for it and make a blockbuster trade in July.

[jkcarew]

 

The Twins had the 4th best run scoring offense in the AL last year, and 4th in wRC+ too. It would be unwise to plan on them being even better 3 years from now, to any meaningful degree.

Why not?  It is likely that Buxton, Kepler, Sano, and Rosario will be better offensively (as a group) when they are 27-29 than 24-26.  That would be a normal outcome.  There are opportunities at the 1B/DH spots for more production, etc.  Meanwhile, who are the current offensive needle-movers that would be gone?  Only Dozier, presumably.

 

Look, I think we're all desperate to win now, but it would not be unreasonable if someone, (maybe especially a new FO) viewed the prime window to be beyond 2018.  In fact, I'd be extremely worried about how they view the young core if they DIDN'T feel that way.

 

I agree that such an approach still doesn't require throwing in the towel on 2018.

[Tomj14]

 

 But I'm not one who measures success only by a World Series win

"If you ain't first, you're last" Ricky Bobby

[Tomj14]

 

Why not?  It is likely that Buxton, Kepler, Sano, and Rosario will be better offensively (as a group) when they are 27-29 than 24-26. 

Isn't it just as likely that at least one of them might be hurt in that time period, regress, or get suspended?

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Isn't it just as likely that at least one of them might be hurt in that time period, regress, or get suspended?

 

Yes. Improvement doesn't go in a straight line upward for every player. Probably not even for most players.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why not?  It is likely that Buxton, Kepler, Sano, and Rosario will be better offensively (as a group) when they are 27-29 than 24-26.  That would be a normal outcome.  There are opportunities at the 1B/DH spots for more production, etc.  Meanwhile, who are the current offensive needle-movers that would be gone?  Only Dozier, presumably.

 

Look, I think we're all desperate to win now, but it would not be unreasonable if someone, (maybe especially a new FO) viewed the prime window to be beyond 2018.  In fact, I'd be extremely worried about how they view the young core if they DIDN'T feel that way.

 

I agree that such an approach still doesn't require throwing in the towel on 2018.

 

ESAn will be gone by then....or not as good.

[alskntwnsfn]

We saw some very good teams in the mid 2000s that were not upgraded midseason, or added to in big ways through free agency in the offseason. In hindsight, that lack of aggression from the FO probably hurt us. If we are in a good position at some point, I'd like to see a big move midseason even if it means giving up a Top 10 prospect. It's not totally feast or famine, but we are not a big market team. We have to pick our spots at some point and I think (I hope) this FO will not make the same mistake when that time comes.

[ashbury]

"If you ain't first, you're last" Ricky Bobby

Sure. And Ricky Bobby was a fictional character, and satire at that.

 

Anyway I don't claim someone else's perspective is wrong in regard to the WS. Just laying out where I am coming from.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I understand the point but still disagree. I think it's a mistake to pinpoint one season as the best chance. Once the window of contention has opened, you just don't know.

 

Also I think I never want to see the organization go all in, because I dislike the feast-or-famine that it presumes. But I'm not one who measures success only by a World Series win, and I also believe that going all in increases your chance by that yardstick by only a little, while delaying the arrival of the next contending core. But that said, I want the team to spend money every year, at a level that requires successful attendance and all that comes with it; failure should be a little painful.

 

The problem is that the point to go all in was this offseason. I liked walking away with Odorizzi, especially given the cost. I'm not happy that we didn't walk away with a Darvish, Archer, or even Otani. 

 

Given where the core is, the playoff finish, and the lack of starting pitching, this season was the season to dedicate some resources to it. I'm not sure the FO dedicated enough... hope I'm wrong there. These guys are sharp, and I do hope they saw something that we have missed...

[jkcarew]

 

Yes. Improvement doesn't go in a straight line upward for every player. Probably not even for most players.

Agreed.  But, especially when considered as a group, all (mentioned) 26 or younger, the trend should be up for the next few years.

 

I have the patience of a man who owns ticket stubs from the '87 and '91 series.  I'll just shut up now.

[clone52]

 

Isn't it just as likely that at least one of them might be hurt in that time period, regress, or get suspended?

 

No, its not just as likely.

 

If you take a random sampling of 5 players, the most likely scenario is that they will be better as a group from ages 26-28 than they were from 23-25.  Is that going to be true for everyone?  Of course not, but generally, that is going to be the case.

[clone52]

 

The problem is that the point to go all in was this offseason. I liked walking away with Odorizzi, especially given the cost. I'm not happy that we didn't walk away with a Darvish, Archer, or even Otani. 

 

Given where the core is, the playoff finish, and the lack of starting pitching, this season was the season to dedicate some resources to it. I'm not sure the FO dedicated enough... hope I'm wrong there. These guys are sharp, and I do hope they saw something that we have missed...

 

The front office might be looking at more than just this season.  Lets say that they want to sign a Lance Lynn type pitcher either this year or next year, but are planning on only signing 1.  Do they sign Lynn or Cobb this year if they absolutely love Drew Pomeranz, Gio Gonzalez and Zach Britton much more?  But, if they wait for those 2019 free agents, they run the risk of not getting anyone in that category.  Thats why they pay them the big bucks.

[Tomj14]

 

No, its not just as likely.

 

If you take a random sampling of 5 players, the most likely scenario is that they will be better as a group from ages 26-28 than they were from 23-25.  Is that going to be true for everyone?  Of course not, but generally, that is going to be the case.

Well Rosario has been suspended once, and Sano has been injured and missed 40+ games in both of the last two years. Kepler and Rosario haven gotten better and Buxton has improved a ton but there is no guarantee .

Plus in 3 years the Twins outfield could be Buxton, Lewis and Rooker or somebody else. In baseball or any other sport you can't plan to win 3 years in advance.

Remember when the Nationals sat Starsburg because they wanted him for the next few years? They still haven't made the world series.

 

[ashbury]

The problem is that the point to go all in was this offseason. I liked walking away with Odorizzi, especially given the cost. I'm not happy that we didn't walk away with a Darvish, Archer, or even Otani.

Probably some seeming difference of opinion comes from fuzzy terms like "all in".

 

I want my team spending like a mid-market team payroll for the major league portion of their expenses, and sub-$100M payrolls should be a thing of the past. So I was in favor of Darvish, and let the owners (since it's a privately held company) sort out the bookkeeping to make that happen while minimizing the effect of dead money in later years, since I see the payroll as still deficient now and in the recent past. Don't spend just to spend, but don't use money as an excuse when you lose by lowballing a high-end talent if you still have room. Go all-in, in the sense of using up available salary room for this season. There's wiggle room for next year and we should let that take care of itself (Mauer, ESan, Dozier) in the fullness of time.

 

But I don't demand that the team balloon for a while to, say, $160M a year payroll. That or above might be going all in, but I'm not in favor, because likely it would mean lean years afterward that could shorten the window of contention.

 

Likewise, I'm in favor of trading from surplus prospects, to strengthen the team (or the farm system too). If Archer could have been had for that, great. But going all-in to get Archer gets a thumbs down from me, if it costs Royce Lewis, and that kind of sounds like what Tampa was angling for.

 

Bottom line, all-in is complicated, but we use it like a simple term.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, its not just as likely.

 

If you take a random sampling of 5 players, the most likely scenario is that they will be better as a group from ages 26-28 than they were from 23-25. Is that going to be true for everyone? Of course not, but generally, that is going to be the case.

The point is, the smaller the sample, the less likely it becomes. And 5 isn't a very large sample. If I had to bet, I would bet on improvement from that group -- but I wouldn't bet much. I certainly wouldn't count on it enough to project our team offense in 2020 would be significantly better than it was in 2017 -- which would mean more than offsetting the loss/decline of Dozier too.

[notoriousgod71]

When you have a chance you need to go for it and commit to it, not half assed wishy washy additions.

 

When KC went to the playoffs in 2014 and won in 2015 everyone said it was amazing because they were ahead of schedule. Then 2016 and 2017 (their supposed window) happened and I bet they're glad they made additions of Cueto, Shields, Zobrist, Davis prior to their so-called window.

 

Strike while the iron is hot for once!

[Mr. Brooks]

My theory about the FO's decisions is that they don't believe in the whole "Window" idea, nor should they. I believe their strategy is to develop the proper supportive infrastructure to generate sustainable, long-term success. Infrastructure includes people, capital, physical facilities, systems, and technology.

 

I believe they'd describe sustained long-term success to mean shortening the cycles between your worst results and your best results, and flattening the cycle as well, i.e. avoiding 100 loss troughs. The key to this is a build-up of assets, the primary asset of course being player and prospect talent. The reason that window-based decisions are ineffective is that we're dealing with an incredibly volatile and unpredictable asset.

 

The other teams aren't standing still either. In baseball terms, 2020 is a light year away. Let's take CWS as an example of why Falvey is going to just keep churning as best he can and isn't thinking for one second about shooting for 2020 or some other window. Eloy Jiminez, Luis Robert, and Micker Adolfo are joined in spring training, right now, by Moncado, the #1 prospect in all of baseball a year ago. Sox fans are salivating as they watch those four, or watch the bullpen sessions of Kopech, and Alec Hansen, and others. With this kind of formidable competition tailgating him right this minute, Falvey doesn't have the luxury, and maybe the assets, to try to time a push. It just doesn't work that way.

 

CWS isn't the only threat. Both Cleveland and Detroit. like CWS, have more pitching prospects than we do who "project" to be front line starters. Of course, these projections are fairly suspect (Gibson was a #2, and Berrios was a #3 at best). But I'm confident that Falvey has the entire baseball organization focused on simply adding and developing assets, so that his smaller group can then continue to do enough horse trading over time to maintain above-average asset values at all levels of the organization. His hope and plan, IMO, is to be an early adopter of new information, technology, and knowledge so that they can secure some small advantage over the competition, knowing that it's an uphill climb, particularly against the organizations enjoying double the annual revenue.

To me that sounds like not risking damaging your chance at a decade of playoff contention, but low odds of winning it all (a la 2000's Twins), on an all in shot at a title.

 

I get why the Twins would want to operate that way. I'm sure they make more money with sustained success over 81 home games than they do in the playoffs, and from management's perspective, it keeps their seats from ever getting too warm.

 

Purely from a fan's perspective though, I'd love if they truly went all in once they think they have a foundation that could win it all. They never quite did that in the 2000's. Stewart was a nice add, but he was better than expected, outside of that, they never traded a bunch of prospects for a real difference maker.

 

I know many disagree, I totally understand and respect the other side. But as I've stated before, I'm a guy that would rather suffer through a decade of awfulness, and a WS title, then a decade of good regular seasons with no postseason success.

[bird]

 

To me that sounds like not risking damaging your chance at a decade of playoff contention, but low odds of winning it all (a la 2000's Twins), on an all in shot at a title.

I get why the Twins would want to operate that way. I'm sure they make more money with sustained success over 81 home games than they do in the playoffs, and from management's perspective, it keeps their seats from ever getting too warm.

Purely from a fan's perspective though, I'd love if they truly went all in once they think they have a foundation that could win it all. They never quite did that in the 2000's. Stewart was a nice add, but he was better than expected, outside of that, they never traded a bunch of prospects for a real difference maker.

I know many disagree, I totally understand and respect the other side. But as I've stated before, I'm a guy that would rather suffer through a decade of awfulness, and a WS title, then a decade of good regular seasons with no postseason success.

 

 

I totally understand where you're coming from, but I really don't think the new FO is thinking like that. Sure, they have an obligation to be good financial stewards, but I believe they're attempting to execute a strategy to win it all. They realize that the odds are always "low". They're even low for the Yankees with $525M in annual revenue, just not as low as a team with $250M in annual revenue.

 

"All in" is such a nebulous concept, and so up for debate as to what constitutes going all in. But I do agree with you that under Ryan, they weren't aggressive enough when they had opportunities. 

 

Reasonable arguments can be made that Falvey should have bolstered the roster more aggressively last year leading into the second half. And that adding a front line starter here is an "all in" move that he should make at practically any cost. Because he didn't, I'm not as sure about my theory about their strategy as I otherwise might be, but I'm still leaning towards the notion that they'll pass on one opportunity and look for the next, avoiding fixation on any thoughts of a window of opportunity but instead staying focused on taking advantage of any opportunity they think incrementally improves their always difficult odds.

 

Personally, I don't think suffering through a decade of awfulness has much to do with improving your chances of a long postseason run. I think we're better off being more consistently in the chase and hoping the stars align. For this old-timer, my two favorite years with this team, in order, were 1967 and 1987. The first was a heartbreaker, but both seasons were something to behold. Last year was a lot more fun than the previous six years combined even though we didn't win squat. I really think Falvey might be a guy who can make incremental improvements without subjecting us to what fans in KC have to look forward to for another 15 years, which is bottom of the standings, a few more years of a crappy talent pipeline, and a weak balance sheet. It would have been sweet to land Darvish, but at least we're going into the season with as least a chance to compete, a MLB roster that ranks up in the top 10, a similarly strong talent pipeline, and no suffocating contractual obligations.

[Jham]

They should have started surrounding the core two years ago. Bit by bit. Then you don't habe to go all in for 1 season.

[beckmt]

 

I think people also need to take into account the teams around the Twins, not just the Twins.

 

The White Sox, for example, are what, one year behind the Twins in the "rebuild that wasn't"? Maybe 2? OTOH, unless Cleveland is better at sustaining excellence than other small/mid-market teams, they should be dropping off in 2-4 years. 

 

IMO, this next 3-5 years is a very good window for this team. But, Dozier and ESan aren't getting younger, nor is Mauer or Castro. They need to find/develop pitching.

I do not see either Dozier or Mauer on the Twins after this year unless they sign team friendly contracts, though depending on the year could see Dozier with a QO as a short term solution.  Depends on the year whether the Twins would pick up ESan's option (I believe if it is close they will), and that leaves only Castro whose last year here will be 2019.  Pipeline is coming but doubt the above players will be part of it 3 years from now.

[Reider]

Lots of great points have been made in this thread. Falvey/Levine can't just focus on today or tomorrow, they need to focus on both. Secondly, team chemistry is important. In theory, the longer a team can keep a large amount of quality players together, the better off the team will be in the long run.

 

As for the "window," the Twins earned a Wildcard spot last year. I don't see why they can't be competitive again this year and at least earn another Wildcard spot. Falvey/Levine did some tinkering this off season and can always do more before the trade deadline. They can always tinker or add significant pieces at the deadline depending on how the team is doing.

 

Sometimes things are touch and go. Last year it appeared that the Twins may be buyers, then the winds changed and it appeared that they were going to be sellers. And then they made the playoffs.

 

I don't believe in loading up a weak/mediocre team at the trade deadline and making a run for it. I believe in building a strong core/foundation to begin with, over time, and if the team is having success and things feel right, then add a few significant pieces before the deadline to try and put the team over the top.

 

The Twins will definitely need to keep making improvements to this team as the year(s) go(es) on, but I'm not sure the answer was to "load up" (as in blow the bank) this past off season. Hopefully the team keeps improving and there comes a time soon, when the time is right to add significant pieces for a serious run. It could be this year or it could be next year or the year after. Who knows, but it would be great to see the Twins as serious contenders again.