What Could a Corbin Burnes Trade Look Like?

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

Building depth in a farm system enables trading of some of those assets.  I would never argue it should not be done.  What I will argue having studied how top players were acquired for literally every playoff team outside the top 10 in revenue for the last 25 years, is that trading for prospects is FAR more important than trading prospects for established players.  The strategy of building assets in this way enables the trading of SOME prospects while sustaining success.  

I have outlined how easy it is to look up any team from the past and determine how it was constructed.  I doubt anyone actually takes the time to look but anyone who does so will not argue this point because the facts are overwhelming.  

I'm not arguing against the idea that building through cheap talent you either drafted and developed or traded for is the best strategy. I'm arguing against the idea that you can't do rental trades if you're outside the top 10 in revenue. This article is about a trade for Corbin Burnes. I disagree with the idea that you can't do this specific trade because it's a rental. I agree you can't do it every year, but doing this individual trade shouldn't be automatically dismissed because it's a rental.

[Major League Ready]

32 minutes ago, Hunter McCall said:

I mean I get it. I see where you're coming from, but there are many ways to build success. While I understand the Rays have sustained some level of success through their very low budget strategy, they have been unable to put fans in the seats or win a World Series.

Ultimately, I get it and there's a lot of reasons to dislike trading for a rental player, but I personally think making this trade would make the Twins real contenders in the AL. Burnes and Lopez at the top would be really hard to beat in October and with all the money invested in guys like Correa and Buxton mixed with blossoming stars like Lewis and Julien, it feels like the time to make a deal like this at a relatively low cost.

Festa is good, but I don't think he's someone who will change the fate of the franchise if he's traded. Prielipp has insane upside but who knows if he ever reaches it. Personally, I would take a chance on one year with the stud and hope you can play your way into the ALCS or beyond. Just my opinion, but I think it's silly to try to completely replicate what other teams do mostly because the Twins' FO doesn't operate under the same principles as the Ray's at all.

It's not just the Rays.  Cleveland and Oakland have done the same thing.  Those 3 franchises have far more 90 win seasons over the past 25 years than all of the other teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue and they are near the very bottom in terms of revenue.  The Twins would have an advantage over these teams If they could follow this model with the same degree of success.  The Twins have a modest amount of incremental revenue that could be spent to extend key players.  Yes, all of those teams have extended players but the twins could extend an extra player or two.  

[Major League Ready]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not arguing against the idea that building through cheap talent you either drafted and developed or traded for is the best strategy. I'm arguing against the idea that you can't do rental trades if you're outside the top 10 in revenue. This article is about a trade for Corbin Burnes. I disagree with the idea that you can't do this specific trade because it's a rental. I agree you can't do it every year, but doing this individual trade shouldn't be automatically dismissed because it's a rental.

I am assuming the cost for Burnes will hurt.  Milwaukee is not trading Burnes for anyone that does not have a high probability of helping them for 6-7 years.  I think that type of short-term focus is very poor asset management.  Those low-cost high producing assets are prerequisites to success for modest revenue teams.  We just disagree which is fine.  Again, I look at the facts (history) and they are overwhelming.

If we were to do a risk profile, there are many other uncertainties with this team.  Betting a lot on one year is reckless.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

I am assuming the cost for Burnes will hurt.  Milwaukee is not trading Burnes for anyone that does not have a high probability of helping them for 6-7 years.  I think that type of short-term focus is very poor asset management.  Those low-cost high producing assets are prerequisites to success for modest revenue teams.  We just disagree which is fine.  Again, I look at the facts (history) and they are overwhelming.

If we were to do a risk profile, there are many other uncertainties with this team.  Betting a lot on one year is reckless.

History is overwhelming that your "never ever do a rental trade" strategy will never lead to a championship.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Now what could that team have done if they'd traded Luis Patino, Vidal Brujan, and Brendan McKay for a 1 year rental of someone like Kevin Gausman? Maybe they make it out of the division series. 

Constantly trading a bunch of prospects for 1 year guys is unsustainable for sure. But refusing to ever take a calculated risk on a rental is also part of why the teams you describe never win championships. There's absolutely risk in trading prospects. It's a numbers game. But the Twins are currently sitting on 4 guys in their rotation (Varland is in there as of today) who are signed or controlled for 4+ more seasons. Trading 1 or 2 of their pitching prospects shouldn't crush them. Yes, it's a risk that you trade a guy who becomes a stud and all the guys who keep flame out, but at some point if you want to take the next step you need to take a risk. If the Twins trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp tanks their future so be it. I find that basically impossible to believe, but maybe Festa and Prielipp are the next Johnson and Schilling and are going to carry a team to a title I guess. 

You can't trade a Festa and Prielipp for a rental every season, but doing it once isn't going to kill you.

They've been trading for guys with only two years of control too often in my book, but then they went and extended Lopez, which off set that. No way they are able to extend Burnes though.

Still, The Twins just had their best rotation in ages last year, and it included ONE homegrown player. This club has shown the ability and willingness to find good rotation pieces via trade for over a half decade now. Prielipp is so far away from the majors, losing him doesn't scare me. I'd like to see Festa, but I suspect whether he ends up being better than Joe Ryan is less than 25% and better than Varland is less than 50%. These aren't bets that would keep me up at night.

All that said, I'm with a few others who suggest the Brewers may not have interest in Polanco. They look like they are quietly tearing this thing down. They might want ALL prospects for Burnes, which I'd pass on.

[Hunter McCall]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

It's not just the Rays.  Cleveland and Oakland have done the same thing.  Those 3 franchises have far more 90 win seasons over the past 25 years than all of the other teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue and they are near the very bottom in terms of revenue.  The Twins would have an advantage over these teams If they could follow this model with the same degree of success.  The Twins have a modest amount of incremental revenue that could be spent to extend key players.  Yes, all of those teams have extended players but the twins could extend an extra player or two.  

Ironically, those are three of the bottom four teams in ballpark attendance over the last 15 years. I hear where you're coming from, but I personally think refusing to spend money comes at a cost. I like the way the Twins operate as more of a mid market style that isn't afraid to stick their nose in there every once in a while.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

They've been trading for guys with only two years of control too often in my book, but then they went and extended Lopez, which off set that. No way they are able to extend Burnes though.

Still, The Twins just had their best rotation in ages last year, and it included ONE homegrown player. This club has shown the ability and willingness to find good rotation pieces via trade for over a half decade now. Prielipp is so far away from the majors, losing him doesn't scare me. I'd like to see Festa, but I suspect whether he ends up being better than Joe Ryan is less than 25% and better than Varland is less than 50%. These aren't bets that would keep me up at night.

All that said, I'm with a few others who suggest the Brewers may not have interest in Polanco. They look like they are quietly tearing this thing down. They might want ALL prospects for Burnes, which I'd pass on.

Yeah, I don't know that they'd take the Polanco, Festa, Prielipp package. Their previous "trade for guys with 2 years of control plus sign 1 year scrap heap guys" strategy was unsustainable, and lacked ceiling. Absolutely not a strategy I'd propose. But their situation was different then. I'm just looking at this specific point in time with this specific team and the specific trade proposed here. They have 4 guys locked up for 4+ years and a 5th locked up for 2 more years. If you can't trade a guy who may never throw a complete season the rest of his life and a guy who doesn't realistically project to be better than a #4 pitcher and survive with their current rotation situation you're in trouble.

I think the floor in the rotation, and team as a whole, is finally pretty well set. They have the vast majority of the 40-man roster locked up through 2027. I think this is the time you start taking some short-term risks. You have 4 years to develop more talent to backup this wave. Automatically rejecting rental trades when you're in this spot doesn't make sense to me.

[Major League Ready]

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

History is overwhelming that your "never ever do a rental trade" strategy will never lead to a championship.

The history in this case is that one team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue has won a Championship since the early 2000s.  That would be the Royals.  The acquisition method for their top WAR players is below.  The short-term move the made did not get them a Championship.  He (Shields was already gone).  Of course, Davis was prominent on that team but he was a mediocre player that blossomed when converted to a RP.  

They had one rental in Zobrist but I would not say he was essential to them winning the WS.  Even if he was, he represents a much smaller investment in prospect capital.  The trade most responsible for this team's success was trading away a great established player in Grienke for Cain and Escobar.

Did the White Sox have any rental in 2005?  I don't think they did.  The 2003 Marlins did some wheeling and dealing so maybe you could make a case their short-term approach worked but I see very little in terms of examples of rentals playing a big part in winning championships for teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue.  I can however list many examples of players acquired for rentals that contributed to long-term success.  

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The history in this case is that one team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue has won a Championship since the early 2000s.  That would be the Royals.  The acquisition method for their top WAR players is below.  The short-term move the made did not get them a Championship.  He (Shields was already gone).  Of course, Davis was prominent on that team but he was a mediocre player that blossomed when converted to a RP.  

They had one rental in Zobrist but I would not say he was essential to them winning the WS.  Even if he was, he represents a much smaller investment in prospect capital.  The trade most responsible for this team's success was trading away a great established player in Grienke for Cain and Escobar.

Did the White Sox have any rental in 2005?  I don't think they did.  The 2003 Marlins did some wheeling and dealing so maybe you could make a case their short-term approach worked but I see very little in terms of examples of rentals playing a big part in winning championships for teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue.  I can however list many examples of players acquired for rentals that contributed to long-term success.  

The A's got some prospect named Sean Manaea for Ben Zobrist in that trade to the Royals. He was the Royals #2 prospect, and #56 global prospect (according to MLB.com) at the time for 59 regular season games of Ben Zobrist. What are the odds that Festa and Prielipp combined reach 12 WAR in their careers (what Manaea is currently at)? I'd say that's a pretty decent sized investment in prospect capital compared to Festa and Prielipp, but maybe you see one of them as near top-50 global prospect.

I'm not going to look up the White Sox team and I'll just give you that one. So 1 championship. So I guess I was too strong with the word "never." 

The 2003 Marlins are the very definition of short-term strategy. They actually followed your plan afterwards and traded every useful veteran piece they had. I don't think their fans would say that strategy has worked out so hot since.

And, again, I'm not saying that trading for rentals should be your core strategy. I agree with you that bringing in young, controllable, cheap players is the right core strategy. My argument is with the idea of never being willing to make a rental deal. You point to Tampa, Cleveland, and Oakland constantly as these model franchises. Tampa's never won a championship. Cleveland hasn't won one since 1948. And Oakland hasn't won one since 1989. I'd much prefer winning 90 games consistently to losing 90 games consistently, but I want a championship more. My entire stance here is about this 1 specific trade at this 1 specific moment in time. If you think trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes is likely to cripple this franchise moving forward, cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree there. The rest of this isn't something we really disagree on. Just the idea that you can never make rental trades. Why limit yourself by refusing to ever use an avenue for possible team improvement?

[Werbellik]

Burnes is projected to make 15.1 million in 24. He is a stud. I'd offer the 2 pitchers and Julien. If they don't take it move on.

[Major League Ready]

35 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The A's got some prospect named Sean Manaea for Ben Zobrist in that trade to the Royals. He was the Royals #2 prospect, and #56 global prospect (according to MLB.com) at the time for 59 regular season games of Ben Zobrist. What are the odds that Festa and Prielipp combined reach 12 WAR in their careers (what Manaea is currently at)? I'd say that's a pretty decent sized investment in prospect capital compared to Festa and Prielipp, but maybe you see one of them as near top-50 global prospect.

I'm not going to look up the White Sox team and I'll just give you that one. So 1 championship. So I guess I was too strong with the word "never." 

The 2003 Marlins are the very definition of short-term strategy. They actually followed your plan afterwards and traded every useful veteran piece they had. I don't think their fans would say that strategy has worked out so hot since.

And, again, I'm not saying that trading for rentals should be your core strategy. I agree with you that bringing in young, controllable, cheap players is the right core strategy. My argument is with the idea of never being willing to make a rental deal. You point to Tampa, Cleveland, and Oakland constantly as these model franchises. Tampa's never won a championship. Cleveland hasn't won one since 1948. And Oakland hasn't won one since 1989. I'd much prefer winning 90 games consistently to losing 90 games consistently, but I want a championship more. My entire stance here is about this 1 specific trade at this 1 specific moment in time. If you think trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes is likely to cripple this franchise moving forward, cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree there. The rest of this isn't something we really disagree on. Just the idea that you can never make rental trades. Why limit yourself by refusing to ever use an avenue for possible team improvement?

I wouldn't dispute the Royals ponied up for Zobrist but do you think he made the difference in them winning the WS.  He did not matter during the regular season and the Royals won the WS 4-1.  Was trading for Zobrist responsible for them winning the WS?  I really don't think it mattered.  

Do we want the Twins to follow what Miami did?  I want to watch a good product every year.  I watch 100+ games/year, every year.  I want them to give me a good product most years and short-term strategies do not facilitate that goal.  Three-quarters or more of WS winners going forward are going to come from top 10 revenue teams.  That means that the bottom 20 teams will win a WS every 80 years if they are average among those 20 teams.  Sacrificing sustained success given this reality does not make sense to me but we all have different desires.  I prefer strategies that get me to the playoffs as often as possible vs pushing chips in to improve odds (maybe) in the short-term.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I wouldn't dispute the Royals ponied up for Zobrist but do you think he made the difference in them winning the WS.  He did not matter during the regular season and the Royals won the WS 4-1.  Was trading for Zobrist responsible for them winning the WS?  I really don't think it mattered.  

Do we want the Twins to follow what Miami did?  I want to watch a good product every year.  I watch 100+ games/year, every year.  I want them to give me a good product most years and short-term strategies do not facilitate that goal.  Three-quarters or more of WS winners going forward are going to come from top 10 revenue teams.  That means that the bottom 20 teams will win a WS every 80 years if they are average among those 20 teams.  Sacrificing sustained success given this reality does not make sense to me but we all have different desires.  I prefer strategies that get me to the playoffs as often as possible vs pushing chips in to improve odds (maybe) in the short-term.

He started every playoff game and hit .300 during their run. And it sent a message that the team was going for it. I wouldn't argue he carried them by any means, but he was certainly a helpful piece.

Only using short-term strategies doesn't facilitate that goal. I'm not advocating for only using short-term strategies. I disagree that making a singular trade for a rental is sacrificing sustained success. If you can't recover from losing 2 decent prospects for a year of a Cy Young candidate (plus a comp pick in the 31-35 range) you're not going to sustain success anyways. There is no reasonable argument to be made that trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp (the deal proposed here) for Corbin Burnes is likely to be a significant hinderance on the Twins chances of sustaining success.

[Major League Ready]

27 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

He started every playoff game and hit .300 during their run. And it sent a message that the team was going for it. I wouldn't argue he carried them by any means, but he was certainly a helpful piece.

Only using short-term strategies doesn't facilitate that goal. I'm not advocating for only using short-term strategies. I disagree that making a singular trade for a rental is sacrificing sustained success. If you can't recover from losing 2 decent prospects for a year of a Cy Young candidate (plus a comp pick in the 31-35 range) you're not going to sustain success anyways. There is no reasonable argument to be made that trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp (the deal proposed here) for Corbin Burnes is likely to be a significant hinderance on the Twins chances of sustaining success.

I simply don't agree and neither do the Tampa Bat Rays.  Obviously, if the prospects flame out there is no problem.  If one of those players like Prelipp lives up to his potential, you have lost an important player for 6-7 years.  Can you survive it?  Sure.  However, the team is definitely worse off for several years if a prospect like Prelipp pans out and some here suggest Julien plus a couple good prospects.  How many more wins is Burnes good for over Julien.  Maybe two wins for one year.  What about the other 5 years we would get from Julien?  History provides the proof of concept and trading for prospects has been far more effective than trading for established players.  Rentals have had very little impact.

[chpettit19]

31 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I simply don't agree and neither do the Tampa Bat Rays.  Obviously, if the prospects flame out there is no problem.  If one of those players like Prelipp lives up to his potential, you have lost an important player for 6-7 years.  Can you survive it?  Sure.  However, the team is definitely worse off for several years if a prospect like Prelipp pans out and some here suggest Julien plus a couple good prospects.  How many more wins is Burnes good for over Julien.  Maybe two wins for one year.  What about the other 5 years we would get from Julien?  History provides the proof of concept and trading for prospects has been far more effective than trading for established players.  Rentals have had very little impact.

I'm not talking about Julien plus a couple good prospects. Don't move the goalposts. I've repeatedly said I'm talking strictly about the proposal mentioned in this article. You're arguing against a point I'm not making to fit it into your narrative. I'm talking Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes. That is it.

And I really hope the Twins are running with some strategies beyond what Tampa is. Revenue, revenue, revenue. That's always the base of your arguments. Well the Twins have significantly more revenue than the Rays. They should be willing to do things the Rays aren't.

What are the odds Prielipp lives up to his potential? He turns 23 on January 10th and has thrown 34.2 competitive innings since 2020. That's the guy you simply can't trade because he may reach his potential? Yeah, you're never going to convince me holding onto him is better asset management than getting a Cy Young candidate and a comp pick that'll be higher than where Prielipp was drafted.

[Major League Ready]

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not talking about Julien plus a couple good prospects. Don't move the goalposts. I've repeatedly said I'm talking strictly about the proposal mentioned in this article. You're arguing against a point I'm not making to fit it into your narrative. I'm talking Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes. That is it.

And I really hope the Twins are running with some strategies beyond what Tampa is. Revenue, revenue, revenue. That's always the base of your arguments. Well the Twins have significantly more revenue than the Rays. They should be willing to do things the Rays aren't.

What are the odds Prielipp lives up to his potential? He turns 23 on January 10th and has thrown 34.2 competitive innings since 2020. That's the guy you simply can't trade because he may reach his potential? Yeah, you're never going to convince me holding onto him is better asset management than getting a Cy Young candidate and a comp pick that'll be higher than where Prielipp was drafted.

I did not intend to move the goal posts.  Some have suggested a package with Julien.  I did state earlier that I don't believe the Brewers trading Burnes without getting a high probability prospect and I don't think you believe that either.   We can discuss trading guys that won't get it done but what's the point.  Therefore, I am speaking conceptually of a package that would land Burnes.  

Revenue is a crucial component to any discussion of how a team is built.  Significant incremental revenue changes what a team can and can't do so to ignore revenue in a discussion of how players were acquired and successful teams built would be ignorant.  

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

I did not intend to move the goal posts.  Some have suggested a package with Julien.  I did state earlier that I don't believe the Brewers trading Burnes without getting a high probability prospect and I don't think you believe that either.   We can discuss trading guys that won't get it done but what's the point.  Therefore, I am speaking conceptually of a package that would land Burnes.  

Revenue is a crucial component to any discussion of how a team is built.  Significant incremental revenue changes what a team can and can't do so to ignore revenue in a discussion of how players were acquired and successful teams built would be ignorant.  

Julien himself is worth more than Burnes on a 1 year deal so adding prospects to him isn't a realistic trade from the Twins point of view. And, yes, revenue is crucial. And the Twins have much more of it than the Rays. So I'm not sure why you want the Twins to operate like the Rays when they should be operating above that.

But we've run amuck in this thread enough. I don't think rental trades of reasonable packages at the right time in the team building process should be automatically off limits to the Twins. You seem to disagree. To each their own.

[nicksaviking]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The history in this case is that one team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue has won a Championship since the early 2000s.  

One in 23 years. If the Twins only ever have a 1-in-23 chance to win a World Series, even now, than they should abandon all on field attempts to compete and aim their focus on obliterating the billionaires who own all the big market teams. Rally the small and mid markets and kick the Dodgers and Yankees out of the league unless there’s 100% revenue sharing.

If all hope is lost for this team other than a lotto ticket, there’s no reason to theorize on a path forward. Which is what most of us are doing.

 

[Major League Ready]

35 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

One in 23 years. If the Twins only ever have a 1-in-23 chance to win a World Series, even now, than they should abandon all on field attempts to compete and aim their focus on obliterating the billionaires who own all the big market teams. Rally the small and mid markets and kick the Dodgers and Yankees out of the league unless there’s 100% revenue sharing.

If all hope is lost for this team other than a lotto ticket, there’s no reason to theorize on a path forward. Which is what most of us are doing.

 

Actually, there were three teams outside the top 10 in revenue that won the WS in the early 2000s.  In the past 18 years since that period, only one team in that revenue segment has won the WS.  Therefore, the odds are not 18:1. There are 20 teams outside the top 10.  Therefore, the odds of one of those 20 teams winning is 20X18 or once every 360 years.  

Those teams are making more money for the small market teams and they are making a lot more money for the players.  Who is going to initiate change that diminishes the income of the teams and the players?

[Werbellik]

I'm gonna get railroaded for this..Let's look at it in a different way. We had Sonny for 2yrs at 12mil each for a Class A pitcher at the time. Burnes would cost us 15mil for one year of the 2 other lottery tickets and Julien just for argument's sake, an improvement over Sonny. So, we will have procured 3yrs of in their prime Cy Young Award and runnerup pitchers and 2 first round comp picks for 39 mil and 3 lottery tickets and Julien with a damn good chance of competing  for the whole ball of wax. In my opinion. What does the sabermetric calculations think of that deal? 

[tony&rodney]

5 hours ago, Werbellik said:

Burnes is projected to make 15.1 million in 24. He is a stud. I'd offer the 2 pitchers and Julien. If they don't take it move on.

So Lewis too?

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Werbellik said:

In my opinion. What does the sabermetric calculations think of that deal? 

The sabermetric folks think you should sit down and watch a bunch of baseball before drawing too many random conclusions.

[Werbellik]

Not Lewis

[Werbellik]

I've been watching Twins Baseball since Rodney was a rookie and Tony was in his 4th year. Have you?

[ashbury]

9 hours ago, Hunter McCall said:

I mean I get it. I see where you're coming from, but there are many ways to build success. While I understand the Rays have sustained some level of success through their very low budget strategy, they have been unable to put fans in the seats

I was considering formulating a reply but you already expressed the gist of it.  MLR treats revenue as the independent variable.  I treat revenue as not just a dependent variable, but one that is as good a metric for success as there is.

Vying for a World Series win is a zero-sum game, but every franchise increasing its revenue is possible in principle and would reflect better health for the sport overall.  I would be open to learning of counter-examples where a team can increase revenue over, say, a 10-year period and somehow harm the franchise.  With two exceptions (Oakland and Baltimore) I don't believe that one franchise increasing its long-term revenue harms another franchise, either.  Fans in the seats, as you put it, isn't revenue, but it's a pretty good proxy.  I want to see every team drawing 3 million.

I don't have enough market research available to assert whether the Rays' approach (ditto the Athletics and some others) to trading away good players when they become expensive is a death spiral for fan interest.  That's my guess though.

[Werbellik]

@tonyandrodney 1967

[SteveLV]

Major League Ready raises an interesting point.

Would the individual team revenue (before any redistribution) for the big market teams decline if there was an NFL style hard cap, hard floor for all teams?  My hypothesis would be, No.  Still big cities with big fan bases that love baseball.

Would overall gross income go up for the league as a whole?  I believe it would, as fans in the small market teams would feel a vested, legitimate chance to contend and beat anyone that comes into town.

As I said in another thread, the old adage of a rising tide raises all ships applies, IMO.  Of course this will be a major financial haircut for the big market teams, but they are part of a league and should have a responsibility to make sure the competition is viable.

The current arrangement where the big market teams partially subsidize the small teams--and then those small teams have no obligation to spend the money on payroll or stadium improvements or scouting or minor league development is equally preposterous.  Who voted for that BS?

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, ashbury said:

I was considering formulating a reply but you already expressed the gist of it.  MLR treats revenue as the independent variable.  I treat revenue as not just a dependent variable, but one that is as good a metric for success as there is.

Vying for a World Series win is a zero-sum game, but every franchise increasing its revenue is possible in principle and would reflect better health for the sport overall.  I would be open to learning of counter-examples where a team can increase revenue over, say, a 10-year period and somehow harm the franchise.  With two exceptions (Oakland and Baltimore) I don't believe that one franchise increasing its long-term revenue harms another franchise, either.  Fans in the seats, as you put it, isn't revenue, but it's a pretty good proxy.  I want to see every team drawing 3 million.

I don't have enough market research available to assert whether the Rays' approach (ditto the Athletics and some others) to trading away good players when they become expensive is a death spiral for fan interest.  That's my guess though.

You are contradicting yourself.  You have concluded revenue is a great indicator or success.  Then, you conclude that the practices of the most successful small market teams have led to lower attendance and reduced revenue.   This is contradictory.  Is it not?

If you think I am treating revenue as an independent variable, you are not understand the basic purpose of the exercise.  I am sure you agree that it does not make sense to evaluate the acquisition methods of teams with grouping them in terms of revenue potential.  In other words, it would be expected for markets with 2X the revenue potential to utilize different acquisition and retention practices.  When we do this, the data for acquisition methods is crystal clear for anyone that cares to look.  I would bet the vast majority never bother to look because they would prefer to believe whatever form of logics supports their predisposed opinion.   The basic flaw in your position (IMO) is that a market like LA or NY simply has far greater capacity to produce income.  The twins can win 100 games every year and retaion every player and they are still going to produce half the revenue of the top markets.

IDK if continuity of roster is more important to revenue production than winning but I doubt it.  What I know without a shadow of doubt is that over the last 20 years, trading for prospects has had far more impact on winning than trading for established players.  Is your argument really revenue?  Do you care more about revenue than winning?  You are opposing hard fact because you would prefer practices that are not supported by the facts.  I have approached this in a completely unbiased way.  I wondered based on posts I saw here what acquisition method was most effective.  I took the time to look at most of the small and mid market playoff teams for the last 20 years because I wanted to know fact vs opinion.  I am simply reporting what has happened.  In other words, what has been most effective and the facts are very clear.  

[tony&rodney]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:19 PM, Werbellik said:

I've been watching Twins Baseball since Rodney was a rookie and Tony was in his 4th year. Have you?

Warren Spahn & Hank Aaron were my first favorite players but the Twins came to Bloomington, not far from my house, and Lenny Green became my favorite as I became a Twins fan in 1961. It was easy to go to games. My other favorite players were Sandy Koufax and Willie Mays. 

I met Tony Oliva in 1964 when he replaced Green, who had been traded, as my favorite player. I met Rod Carew in 1967. 

I know we have some guys who have been watching and going to baseball games much longer than me and had favorite teams and players before the Twins arrived. There are also a ton of really good Twins fans who grew up with Kirby and Joe Mauer as well as diehard teenage fans today. It lives on.

[tony&rodney]

On 12/22/2023 at 8:23 PM, SteveLV said:

The current arrangement where the big market teams partially subsidize the small teams--and then those small teams have no obligation to spend the money on payroll or stadium improvements or scouting or minor league development is equally preposterous.  Who voted for that BS?

We can likely agree that our idea of how MLB is run seems odd, but the owners seem to love the arrangement and the MLBPA sees a strong guarantee of contracts for the players. The negotiated settlement keeps both sides relatively happy i guess. We are pretty sure that the owners will not agree to a salary floor amenable to the players and the players will not agree to a salary ceiling that suits the owners. 

[SteveLV]

That is why you need a strong Commissioner to ramrod the changes that are necessary for the long-term success of the League.