Why You Shouldn't Lump Anthony DeSclafani In With Other Injured Twins Pitching Acquisitions

[Danchat]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Yes. 100 percent Yes.

If true, A) the Twins front office should be fired this instant for trading a player of Polanco's value mostly for a AAAA starter and B) the Seattle front office looks very dumb for "throwing in" a top 100 prospect when they could have used Gonzalez as a chip in another trade. I've never heard of a prospect of that caliber being a throwaway addition outside of a megadeal.

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

And as Schmoeman5 so brilliantly points out above, I doubt Falvine makes the same trade today. 

Well no, because DeScalfani isn't going to pitch until mid-2025 if he's lucky... but the trade doesn't go through without Gonzalez because he wasn't a throw-in, he was the main prize of the trade. Falvey may have said he didn't trade Polanco for the prospects and felt that starting pitching was their greatest need, but actions speak louder than words. Baffling actions to be sure, especially given how they spent their little money on Farmer, Margot, and Santana and have put themselves in this situation.

[Schmoeman5]

2 hours ago, Danchat said:

If true, A) the Twins front office should be fired this instant for trading a player of Polanco's value mostly for a AAAA starter and B) the Seattle front office looks very dumb for "throwing in" a top 100 prospect when they could have used Gonzalez as a chip in another trade. I've never heard of a prospect of that caliber being a throwaway addition outside of a megadeal.

Well no, because DeScalfani isn't going to pitch until mid-2025 if he's lucky... but the trade doesn't go through without Gonzalez because he wasn't a throw-in, he was the main prize of the trade. Falvey may have said he didn't trade Polanco for the prospects and felt that starting pitching was their greatest need, but actions speak louder than words. Baffling actions to be sure, especially given how they spent their little money on Farmer, Margot, and Santana and have put themselves in this situation.

Gonzalez is a top 100 prospect on ONE list. Out of 73 lists for prospects. So Polanco was traded for High Hopes. Was Gonzalez on your list of top 100 prospects? Main prize. So DeSclafani was the booby prize I guess. And if a person says one thing and then does the opposite. What does that make him? This is par for the course across all levels in life. That's why it's refreshing when someone does what they say. Falvey was lauded for being so honest when discussing payroll cuts. Its the only honest thing he's said in his tenure with the Twins. He'd be better off not saying anything. 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Some of us: "Trading Polanco for a broken starter, volatile reliever, and prospects hurt the 2024 Twins."

You: "Yeah, but it may have helped the 2027 Twins!"

Us: "We're talking about the 2024 Twins and how this trade effected them."

You: "Yeah, but the facts say the 2027 Twins might be better."

Us: "Yeah, we understand, but we're willing to take that chance to take a real shot at improving upon an ALDS team instead of making it worse."

You: "But 'somebody' did a lot of research so we should talk about the 2027 Twins because that's what their research proves. So ignore what you're talking about and talk about what I want to talk about instead."

Us: "We get it. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the 2024 Twins."

You: "But 2027..."

(Sub in any future year instead of 2027 if you'd like)

There is just a speck of truth in this but it's a juvenile rant that does not remotely depict what I said.  I responded to your constant harping about the organization not being willing to do what it takes to build a dominant team.   I offered you hard facts that quite clearly illustrate those teams were built by making this type of trade.  The evidence is overwhelming, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it completely discredits what you insist must be done.  Go ahead, keep thinking the problem is that the people in charge are incompetent.  Their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

There is just a speck of truth in this but it's a juvenile rant that does not remotely depict what I said.  I responded to your constant harping about the organization not being willing to do what it takes to build a dominant team.   I offered you hard facts that quite clearly illustrate those teams were built by making this type of trade.  The evidence is overwhelming, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it completely discredits what you insist must be done.  Go ahead, keep thinking the problem is that the people in charge are incompetent.  Their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence. 

Did trading Jorge Polanco for prospects a volatile reliever and a broken starter make the 2024 Twins better or worse?

Nobody has called them incompetent. They didn't trade Kepler and will lose him for nothing which goes against your strategy, would you call them incompetent for that? What about not trading Gray or Maeda? Are you calling them incompetent for that because they went against your strategy? Don't put words in other people's mouths. We can disagree with moves without it being us calling them incompetent. Did not trading those guys tell you they're "quite aware of the facts?"

I do not refute that the best way for teams in the Twins financial situation to build consistently solid teams is to trade guys like Polanco for prospects. That is not what I'm disagreeing with. Which was the point of my rant. Trading Polanco for prospects made the 2024 team worse (in my, and apparently other's, opinion) while possibly helping in the future. You are the one refusing to acknowledge that because all you want to talk about is your research.

Did that trade hurt or improve the 2024 Twins chances of improving upon their ALDS appearance from 2023? Don't tell us about your research or the future or anything else. Because, as my rant pointed out, that's not what others of us are talking about. We are talking about the 2024 Minnesota Twins. Did that trade help or hurt the talent level of the 2024 Minnesota Twins?

[Riverbrian]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Did trading Jorge Polanco for prospects a volatile reliever and a broken starter make the 2024 Twins better or worse?

Nobody has called them incompetent. They didn't trade Kepler and will lose him for nothing which goes against your strategy, would you call them incompetent for that?

I do not refute that the best way for teams in the Twins financial situation to build consistently solid teams is to trade guys like Polanco for prospects. That is not what I'm disagreeing with. Which was the point of my rant. Trading Polanco for prospects made the 2024 team worse (in my, and apparently other's, opinion) while possibly helping in the future. You are the one refusing to acknowledge that because all you want to talk about is your research.

Did that trade hurt or improve the 2024 Twins chances of improving upon their ALDS appearance from 2023? Don't tell us about your research or the future or anything else. Because, as my rant pointed out, that's not what others of us are talking about. We are talking about the 2024 Minnesota Twins. Did that trade help or hurt the talent level of the 2024 Minnesota Twins?

I can't speak for everyone but I really appreciate your post. It's a nice attempt to get the conversation centered. Not sure it will work but I appreciate the effort. 

While I don't doubt weather the research being presented is fact.

It isn't really hard to realize that his research isn't germane to the conversation because Polanco DOESN'T BELONG in his 9% Edison Volquez expensive free agent category. Polanco belongs in his IFA designation. I'm not sure why he has IFA separate from drafted players since they are both typically developed players but that's ok because they are easily added together. This places our modern day Polanco scenario in the group that accounted for 47% of WAR that the Royals produced in 2015.  

The other what should be obvious problem with using his research IN THIS DISCUSSION... I'll say again that I don't doubt the research is factual.

He has to account for 100% of the WAR making it a zero sum game. If 9% of your team WAR was acquired in the free agent market. The other 91% has to be divided amongst the other two methods of player acquisition which are trades and development. If you divide 91% by 2... You get 45.5% so in that case... 47% coming from development isn't that far off the mark and let me repeat that Polanco belongs in the 47% column since he was home grown. 

And perhaps the most important point to illustrate that the research doesn't apply to this conversation.  Everybody knows... or at least everybody should know by now that the small market teams do not typically or naturally play in the HIGH END of the Free Agent Market because they are lower revenue.

Small market teams typically sign lower end free agents like... I don't know... for example... a 38 year old Carlos Santana in the free agent market because that is what they can afford... because that is what is left over after the big market squads get done shopping and therefore typically... naturally...  consistently end up with low percentages of WAR coming from the free agent market... you get what you pay for... which of course means... since 100% of War must be accounted for. Low percentage out of free agency means that the Development and Trade buckets will have to be higher to accommodate and therefore account for all 100%.

In a nutshell... By constantly hammering us with this research... he doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't apply to Jorge Polanco at all but his research which I don't dispute as factual could be used as justification for not signing Carlos Santana. 

His research should probably have it's own thread for intelligent discussion amongst those inclined. Just not here.  

Anyway... Mr. Chia pet... I appreciate your attempt to get the train back on the rails. Good Luck. 

 

[Cris E]

17 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

This is just a hypothetical question. If the Twins knew now that DeSclafani would probably never throw a pitch for the Twins, do they still make this trade? And remember that one of Falveys statements was that the Twins weren't trading for prospects. They were trading for the here and now. It might be that these 2 prospects that they got will pay dividends. But that was not what the FO was aiming for. At least that's what they said to the media and fan base. All this other arguing is just a my dad's tougher than yours. And everyone knows. My dad's the toughest.

There were only a couple teams out there that had any interest in Polanco, so the trade partner options were limited. Seattle was the best fit, needing exactly what Polanco offered, but you can measure how resistant they were to parting with ready starting pitching by the quality of prospects they sent instead.  So they built the best trade possible, and in the end to balance the trade with Seattle they had to take salary back or send money over. If they knew Descalfani wouldn't pitch they probably would have asked for something else on the back end. But no matter what they weren't getting anyone that Varland wasn't going to beat out. (Descalfani has had an ERA+ of 61 and 87 the past two years while in Varland's first two years he reached 104 and 94.)

No one knows what they were thinking when they spoke to the press, except that you always put the best face possible on a trade. Fans want to hear we're building for 2024 so that's what we tell them. If Descalfani actually showed up healthy and effective then jackpot, but the Giants dumped him when they needed pitching, the Mariners had no place for him in their rotation and the Twins saw him as a potential #5. If you think they traded Polanco for a #5 and you're mad about it I guess I understand, but I also think you're wrong to discount everything else they got via the Polanco dump.

[Schmoeman5]

1 hour ago, Cris E said:

There were only a couple teams out there that had any interest in Polanco, so the trade partner options were limited. Seattle was the best fit, needing exactly what Polanco offered, but you can measure how resistant they were to parting with ready starting pitching by the quality of prospects they sent instead.  So they built the best trade possible, and in the end to balance the trade with Seattle they had to take salary back or send money over. If they knew Descalfani wouldn't pitch they probably would have asked for something else on the back end. But no matter what they weren't getting anyone that Varland wasn't going to beat out. (Descalfani has had an ERA+ of 61 and 87 the past two years while in Varland's first two years he reached 104 and 94.)

No one knows what they were thinking when they spoke to the press, except that you always put the best face possible on a trade. Fans want to hear we're building for 2024 so that's what we tell them. If Descalfani actually showed up healthy and effective then jackpot, but the Giants dumped him when they needed pitching, the Mariners had no place for him in their rotation and the Twins saw him as a potential #5. If you think they traded Polanco for a #5 and you're mad about it I guess I understand, but I also think you're wrong to discount everything else they got via the Polanco dump.

They didn't trade for a #5 starter. They traded for a HOPE. That's exactly why Falvey changed his tune. Why does it matter if Seattle was the only dance partner?  He could have always said NO. But he didn't. Instead he pivoted and said. Hey we were hoping for a starter. But we settled for a 1 year wonder out of the pen and we got these 2 prospects too. 1 is ranked in the top 100 of 1 site. And this Bowen kid has this great raw talent. He's gonna blow you away. IN AROUND 4 YEARS.  The other guys. Well, we're hoping y'all forget about them.  Keep drinking the Twins Kool-aid. Falvey and Levine could be replaced by lab monkeys. I'm sure of it. As well as Rocco. And don't even get me started about St. Peter. That dude needs to be taken out behind the woodshed. The Twins are turning into a mickey mouse operation. A's lite

[Major League Ready]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:12 AM, chpettit19 said:

Did trading Jorge Polanco for prospects a volatile reliever and a broken starter make the 2024 Twins better or worse?

I do not refute that the best way for teams in the Twins financial situation to build consistently solid teams is to trade guys like Polanco for prospects. That is not what I'm disagreeing with. Which was the point of my rant. Trading Polanco for prospects made the 2024 team worse (in my, and apparently other's, opinion) while possibly helping in the future. You are the one refusing to acknowledge that because all you want to talk about is your research.

Did that trade hurt or improve the 2024 Twins chances of improving upon their ALDS appearance from 2023? Don't tell us about your research or the future or anything else. Because, as my rant pointed out, that's not what others of us are talking about. We are talking about the 2024 Minnesota Twins. Did that trade help or hurt the talent level of the 2024 Minnesota Twins?

I don’t think that the Twins would describe Topa as a volatile Reliever” None of the many baseball reporters that covered the trade described him in this way.  I think it depends on what they get from Topa and Brooks Lee.  I think part of this decision was making room for Lee.  

You need to make up your mind if your goal is the best team this season or building the a dominant team.  You have been adamant that you want strategies followed that have the best chance of producing a true contender which you defined as a 100 win team.  Polanco might have added 1 WAR.  We will see if he stays healthy and performs.  Regardless, he is inconsequential in terms of reaching your stated goal.

The real question should be what is the best way to achieve your goal or how have other teams in the bottom half of revenue achieved your goal because it’s highly unlikely that the 2024 Twins are going to be that team with or without Jorge Polanco.  Can we look back at how other teams managed their roster in achieving this goal?  Of course.  So, let me ask you a question now that you know that virtually every 97 win / bottom half revenue team over the past couple decades produced 45-55% of their revenue from prospects (defined as players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season).  The question is how have the teams in the bottom half of revenue built the dominant / 97+ win type team, which is your stated goal?  Did they trade from depth (Polanco) or trade players they could not afford while they could get value instead of keeping them through the end of their contract? 

If you say the only thing that matters is a WS win.  Should we emulate KC?  If we use your other stated goal of a dominant team with a good chance, let's see if you can actually answer the question of what we should conclude by looking at every team that has achieved the kind of dominance you say is your goal.  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I don’t think that the Twins would describe Topa as a volatile Reliever” None of the many baseball reporters that covered the trade described him in this way.  I think it depends on what they get from Topa and Brooks Lee.  I think part of this decision was making room for Lee.  

You need to make up your mind if your goal is the best team this season or building the a dominant team.  You have been adamant that you want strategies followed that have the best chance of producing a true contender which you defined as a 100 win team.  Polanco might have added 1 WAR.  We will see if he stays healthy and performs.  Regardless, he is inconsequential in terms of reaching your stated goal.

The real question should be what is the best way to achieve your goal or how have other teams in the bottom half of revenue achieved your goal because it’s highly unlikely that the 2024 Twins are going to be that team with or without Jorge Polanco.  Can we look back at how other teams managed their roster in achieving this goal?  Of course.  So, let me ask you a question now that you know that virtually every 97 win / bottom half revenue team over the past couple decades produced 45-55% of their revenue from prospects (defined as players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season).  The question is how have the teams in the bottom half of revenue built the dominant / 97+ win type team, which is your stated goal?  Did they trade from depth (Polanco) or trade players they could not afford while they could get value instead of keeping them through the end of their contract? 

If you say the only thing that matters is a WS win.  Should we emulate KC?  If we use your other stated goal of a dominant team with a good chance, let's see if you can actually answer the question of what we should conclude by looking at every team that has achieved the kind of dominance you say is your goal.  

Impressive, truly. I openly acknowledged and accepted your data, and said I just want an answer to the question of whether or not you thought trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better and your response is to not just answer the question, but to continue to harp on the data that I granted to you as being accurate and a good strategy for a shot at sustaining successful seasons.

For someone who earlier in this thread typed out the sentences "I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of" and "So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts" you sure are good at ignoring questions. You won't simply answer if trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better or worse and you won't give us your lineups that show Polanco wouldn't play on this team everyday. I can only assume that your refusal to answer those questions is because your answers would be "it made the 2024 team worse" and "there aren't any lineups I could come up with that wouldn't have Polanco as an everyday player for the 2024 Twins."

Justin Topa is a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season and 3 bad, but short, ones. If that doesn't meet the definition of volatile reliever I don't know what does. Every major baseball writer/reporter/analyst in the country says the vast majority of relievers are volatile, fungible assets. 32 year olds with 1 good season are the exact reason why they say that. It's the reason the Twins don't spend money on relievers.

Do you realize that you're advocating that it was smart for the Twins to trade the guy acquired before he produced a 1.5 WAR season to return multiple pieces (Topa and DeSclafani) for the 2024 Twins that have already produced 1.5 WAR seasons (which you say is a no no) and then trade for another one (Margot) and sign a 4th (Santana) while not non-tendering a 5th that they acquired via trade last year (Farmer) or trading away a 6th they signed last year for basically Polanco money (Vazquez)? And you haven't complained about them trading for Maeda, Mahle, Paddack, and Gray which goes against your strategy. Nor have you complained that they haven't traded Kepler, nor did they trade Maeda, Mahle, or Gray before they walked. Yet you claim "their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence." Oh, and they signed Correa to multiple big money deals, also against your strategy. The vast majority of their moves go directly against your strategy, are you calling them incompetent because they don't follow your strategy in any meaningful way?

My mind has been made up and very clearly established on my goal for the 2024 Twins. It was to not shoot themselves in their own foot while making an ALDS team worse, but instead to build on the momentum from 2023 and improve the team. I have no doubt you know this. I have been incredibly consistent in this stance from the very start of the offseason to when Falvey announced the payroll to decrease to the Polanco trade to Pohlad saying "right-size our business" to the signing of Santana and everything before, after, and in between those moves.

The reason the 2024 Twins aren't likely capable of being a dominant team is because they chose to cut payroll (do not even think about starting a debate about finances on this thread, I'm simply stating it made the team worse this season not whether it was the right business decision) which lead to the trade of one of their best players for significantly less 2024 value, the retaining of a short side of a platoon bat for significantly more money than he's worth, the signing of a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties to be an everyday player, and them making no move whatsoever to give them any sort of realistic chance of replacing their departing rotation pieces. Trading away Polanco is part of why the 2024 team doesn't have a very good chance of being dominant so you're just creating a circular logic to say trading him was smart.

Yes, I'd be good with the Twins emulating what KC did to win the World Series. They're the team that went against your "trade veterans before they leave" strategy and it got them a title. If Gonzalez becomes Ronald Acuna Jr 2.0 in 2 years I'll eat my crow and say it was a great trade. Feel free to bring it up as much as you want. I'll take the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that he's ever a vital part of an MLB team and say that making the 2024 Twins worse instead of better was a bad decision.

Yes, continually acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of the Twins being successful. Your research is not groundbreaking stuff as acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of literally 100% of MLB teams being successful, and they all know it. But trading veterans for young, cheap talent at certain times of your team building cycle is also a reason why none of your pet teams ever win titles. The Royals held their guys and won. Yes, I'd like the Twins to have taken that chance with Polanco. You don't have to agree. It's reasonable that you don't want to take the extra risk of the team falling apart after. I am willing to take that risk whether you find it reasonable or not. I am more than happy to acknowledge your research (again), but you also need to acknowledge that taking away from the current team to help the future team is, in fact, taking away from the current team and that those of us who dislike that strategy at certain times aren't ignoring your data or calling the FO incompetent or any of the other claims you make because we won't just say "yes, do whatever MLR says you should!" It is acceptable to think the Polanco trade was smart. It's also acceptable to dislike it. I think the vast majority of us who dislike it also acknowledge that they got good value for him, in a vacuum. It's just not the kind of value we want coming off an ALDS appearance.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I don’t think that the Twins would describe Topa as a volatile Reliever” None of the many baseball reporters that covered the trade described him in this way.  I think it depends on what they get from Topa and Brooks Lee.  I think part of this decision was making room for Lee.  

You need to make up your mind if your goal is the best team this season or building the a dominant team.  You have been adamant that you want strategies followed that have the best chance of producing a true contender which you defined as a 100 win team.  Polanco might have added 1 WAR.  We will see if he stays healthy and performs.  Regardless, he is inconsequential in terms of reaching your stated goal.

The real question should be what is the best way to achieve your goal or how have other teams in the bottom half of revenue achieved your goal because it’s highly unlikely that the 2024 Twins are going to be that team with or without Jorge Polanco.  Can we look back at how other teams managed their roster in achieving this goal?  Of course.  So, let me ask you a question now that you know that virtually every 97 win / bottom half revenue team over the past couple decades produced 45-55% of their revenue from prospects (defined as players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season).  The question is how have the teams in the bottom half of revenue built the dominant / 97+ win type team, which is your stated goal?  Did they trade from depth (Polanco) or trade players they could not afford while they could get value instead of keeping them through the end of their contract? 

If you say the only thing that matters is a WS win.  Should we emulate KC?  If we use your other stated goal of a dominant team with a good chance, let's see if you can actually answer the question of what we should conclude by looking at every team that has achieved the kind of dominance you say is your goal.  

Someone. Anyone: "One plus one equals two."

MLR: "But let's talk yet again about my pet theory. I'm not sure you listened the first 427 times I talked down to you about it."

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Impressive, truly. I openly acknowledged and accepted your data, and said I just want an answer to the question of whether or not you thought trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better and your response is to not just answer the question, but to continue to harp on the data that I granted to you as being accurate and a good strategy for a shot at sustaining successful seasons.

For someone who earlier in this thread typed out the sentences "I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of" and "So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts" you sure are good at ignoring questions. You won't simply answer if trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better or worse and you won't give us your lineups that show Polanco wouldn't play on this team everyday. I can only assume that your refusal to answer those questions is because your answers would be "it made the 2024 team worse" and "there aren't any lineups I could come up with that wouldn't have Polanco as an everyday player for the 2024 Twins."

Justin Topa is a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season and 3 bad, but short, ones. If that doesn't meet the definition of volatile reliever I don't know what does. Every major baseball writer/reporter/analyst in the country says the vast majority of relievers are volatile, fungible assets. 32 year olds with 1 good season are the exact reason why they say that. It's the reason the Twins don't spend money on relievers.

Do you realize that you're advocating that it was smart for the Twins to trade the guy acquired before he produced a 1.5 WAR season to return multiple pieces (Topa and DeSclafani) for the 2024 Twins that have already produced 1.5 WAR seasons (which you say is a no no) and then trade for another one (Margot) and sign a 4th (Santana) while not non-tendering a 5th that they acquired via trade last year (Farmer) or trading away a 6th they signed last year for basically Polanco money (Vazquez)? And you haven't complained about them trading for Maeda, Mahle, Paddack, and Gray which goes against your strategy. Nor have you complained that they haven't traded Kepler, nor did they trade Maeda, Mahle, or Gray before they walked. Yet you claim "their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence." Oh, and they signed Correa to multiple big money deals, also against your strategy. The vast majority of their moves go directly against your strategy, are you calling them incompetent because they don't follow your strategy in any meaningful way?

My mind has been made up and very clearly established on my goal for the 2024 Twins. It was to not shoot themselves in their own foot while making an ALDS team worse, but instead to build on the momentum from 2023 and improve the team. I have no doubt you know this. I have been incredibly consistent in this stance from the very start of the offseason to when Falvey announced the payroll to decrease to the Polanco trade to Pohlad saying "right-size our business" to the signing of Santana and everything before, after, and in between those moves.

The reason the 2024 Twins aren't likely capable of being a dominant team is because they chose to cut payroll (do not even think about starting a debate about finances on this thread, I'm simply stating it made the team worse this season not whether it was the right business decision) which lead to the trade of one of their best players for significantly less 2024 value, the retaining of a short side of a platoon bat for significantly more money than he's worth, the signing of a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties to be an everyday player, and them making no move whatsoever to give them any sort of realistic chance of replacing their departing rotation pieces. Trading away Polanco is part of why the 2024 team doesn't have a very good chance of being dominant so you're just creating a circular logic to say trading him was smart.

Yes, I'd be good with the Twins emulating what KC did to win the World Series. They're the team that went against your "trade veterans before they leave" strategy and it got them a title. If Gonzalez becomes Ronald Acuna Jr 2.0 in 2 years I'll eat my crow and say it was a great trade. Feel free to bring it up as much as you want. I'll take the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that he's ever a vital part of an MLB team and say that making the 2024 Twins worse instead of better was a bad decision.

Yes, continually acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of the Twins being successful. Your research is not groundbreaking stuff as acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of literally 100% of MLB teams being successful, and they all know it. But trading veterans for young, cheap talent at certain times of your team building cycle is also a reason why none of your pet teams ever win titles. The Royals held their guys and won. Yes, I'd like the Twins to have taken that chance with Polanco. You don't have to agree. It's reasonable that you don't want to take the extra risk of the team falling apart after. I am willing to take that risk whether you find it reasonable or not. I am more than happy to acknowledge your research (again), but you also need to acknowledge that taking away from the current team to help the future team is, in fact, taking away from the current team and that those of us who dislike that strategy at certain times aren't ignoring your data or calling the FO incompetent or any of the other claims you make because we won't just say "yes, do whatever MLR says you should!" It is acceptable to think the Polanco trade was smart. It's also acceptable to dislike it. I think the vast majority of us who dislike it also acknowledge that they got good value for him, in a vacuum. It's just not the kind of value we want coming off an ALDS appearance.

We do share the goal of building a dominant team.  Of course, the best way to do this is the focal point of many discussions here.  It was these debates that promoted me to make the effort to research how the various acquisition methods had actually influenced the most successful teams.  

Had they spent another $30M on the FA(s) of your choice, and kept Polanco, they would have been a better team.  They still would have projected to win right around 90 games so it seems unlikely they would have been a dominant team which you and I have described as 97-100 win teams. I simply don’t believe pieces are there to be a dominant team even if they spent another $30M in free agency.  The need more talent to get them over the hump and free agency is the most inefficient way to get there.  The data or history strongly suggests to me that this type of trade has been by far the most effective roster building strategy.  

Classifying Polanco as a player that was acquired before producing 1.5 WAR does not distinguish International draftees from the standard first year player draft or players who were acquired via trade.   The categories were defined in order to identify what strategies have been the most effective.  Therefore, I set-up the following categories.

1)    1st year Player Draft
2)    International Signing which Polanco falls into
3)    Players acquired by trade before they reach 1.5 WAR. 
4)    Players acquired after becoming established defined as having produced a 1.5 WAR season
5)    Free agents.

•    The criteria for RPs is 1.2 WAR

I have not complained about some of the other trades you mentioned because I don’t believe the fact this type of trade is the most effective means we should never trade for an established player.  The better job they do acquiring talent, the more talent they can afford to trade.  BTW … I was very much against training for Mahle and took a lot of heat here for apposing a trade when the team was in 1st place.  If you recall my position was that being in 1st place is not synonymous with being a contender.  We would be a better team today had they not made a huge investment in trying to make the 2022 team a contender.  Maeda had multiple years of control on a good contract for a RP.  SPs are a lot harder to come by than RPs.  Gray was traded for a HS pitcher.  My take was that the odds are pretty good that HS pitcher does not pan out but we could live to regret that decision.
 

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

We do share the goal of building a dominant team.  Of course, the best way to do this is the focal point of many discussions here.  It was these debates that promoted me to make the effort to research how the various acquisition methods had actually influenced the most successful teams.  

Had they spent another $30M on the FA(s) of your choice, and kept Polanco, they would have been a better team.  They still would have projected to win right around 90 games so it seems unlikely they would have been a dominant team which you and I have described as 97-100 win teams. I simply don’t believe pieces are there to be a dominant team even if they spent another $30M in free agency.  The need more talent to get them over the hump and free agency is the most inefficient way to get there.  The data or history strongly suggests to me that this type of trade has been by far the most effective roster building strategy.  

Classifying Polanco as a player that was acquired before producing 1.5 WAR does not distinguish International draftees from the standard first year player draft or players who were acquired via trade.   The categories were defined in order to identify what strategies have been the most effective.  Therefore, I set-up the following categories.

1)    1st year Player Draft
2)    International Signing which Polanco falls into
3)    Players acquired by trade before they reach 1.5 WAR. 
4)    Players acquired after becoming established defined as having produced a 1.5 WAR season
5)    Free agents.

•    The criteria for RPs is 1.2 WAR

I have not complained about some of the other trades you mentioned because I don’t believe the fact this type of trade is the most effective means we should never trade for an established player.  The better job they do acquiring talent, the more talent they can afford to trade.  BTW … I was very much against training for Mahle and took a lot of heat here for apposing a trade when the team was in 1st place.  If you recall my position was that being in 1st place is not synonymous with being a contender.  We would be a better team today had they not made a huge investment in trying to make the 2022 team a contender.  Maeda had multiple years of control on a good contract for a RP.  SPs are a lot harder to come by than RPs.  Gray was traded for a HS pitcher.  My take was that the odds are pretty good that HS pitcher does not pan out but we could live to regret that decision.
 

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Julien would've been the 2B I traded in a move that would've taken on salary while keeping Polanco and not spending money on Santana. Add in a FA like Hoskins for a very reasonable deal and I think the team would be significantly better than it is today without having to play in the deep end of the FA pool.

Being ok with trading for the guys you were ok with them trading for, and not being all over the FO for not turning around and trading them again before they left (I'm not sure why you're counting Maeda as a RP, by the way) shows that you aren't as married to your strategy as you demand the rest of us be. I'm not sure why it's ok for you to think trading for Sonny was good, and not trading him before he left for nothing was ok, but it's crazy that some of us had a problem with the Polanco trade. To me, that isn't about your strategy at all and is just differing opinions about players and team capabilities. If it's ok to deviate from the strategy sometimes, why can't this be one of those times? If you really believed in the strategy so much you should've been all over them for a number of these moves. But you weren't. Because sometimes the smart thing is to go a little off script. I think in future discussions you should remember that you don't demand strict adherence to the strategy so you probably shouldn't go after others so aggressively when they question a move that doesn't fit perfectly in your strategy that you are now admitting isn't something that needs to be followed to the letter. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Julien would've been the 2B I traded in a move that would've taken on salary while keeping Polanco and not spending money on Santana. Add in a FA like Hoskins for a very reasonable deal and I think the team would be significantly better than it is today without having to play in the deep end of the FA pool.

Being ok with trading for the guys you were ok with them trading for, and not being all over the FO for not turning around and trading them again before they left (I'm not sure why you're counting Maeda as a RP, by the way) shows that you aren't as married to your strategy as you demand the rest of us be. I'm not sure why it's ok for you to think trading for Sonny was good, and not trading him before he left for nothing was ok, but it's crazy that some of us had a problem with the Polanco trade. To me, that isn't about your strategy at all and is just differing opinions about players and team capabilities. If it's ok to deviate from the strategy sometimes, why can't this be one of those times? If you really believed in the strategy so much you should've been all over them for a number of these moves. But you weren't. Because sometimes the smart thing is to go a little off script. I think in future discussions you should remember that you don't demand strict adherence to the strategy so you probably shouldn't go after others so aggressively when they question a move that doesn't fit perfectly in your strategy that you are now admitting isn't something that needs to be followed to the letter. 

When I said for a RP, I meant Maeda was traded for a RP (Graterol).  My writing was not clear.  

Gray had two years of control when we traded for him.  Were they going to trade him in 2023.  Is trading your #1 or #2 Starter  even remotely the same as trading for a position of depth?

Maeda was hurt so we were not getting anything for him and again different than trading from depth.

I agree with you that signing Hoskins and trading Julien for a SP would have made the 2023 Twins better.  However, all of the SPs that were acquired via trade this year had one or two years of control.  Was there anyone other than Cease that 2 years of control.  He cost a lot more than just Julien.  It's a very similar bet and cost to Mahle.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

When I said for a RP, I meant Maeda was traded for a RP (Graterol).  My writing was not clear.  

Gray had two years of control when we traded for him.  Were they going to trade him in 2023.  Is trading your #1 or #2 Starter  even remotely the same as trading for a position of depth?

Maeda was hurt so we were not getting anything for him and again different than trading from depth.

I agree with you that signing Hoskins and trading Julien for a SP would have made the 2023 Twins better.  However, all of the SPs that were acquired via trade this year had one or two years of control.  Was there anyone other than Cease that 2 years of control.  He cost a lot more than just Julien.  It's a very similar bet and cost to Mahle.

That makes sense on the Maeda/Graterol trade.

If what smart teams do is trade veterans for prospects before they leave for nothing, then, yes, they should've traded him in 2023. There's nothing in your strategy that says "if you've only had them for 1 year then it's not smart to trade them." If you're going to pick and choose who it's ok to lose for nothing then don't attack others for picking and choosing who they feel it's ok to not trade. Especially since Polanco has another year of control left and they weren't going to lose him after this year. The Twins started Ober in AAA last year so wouldn't that be a position of depth considering you've been pushing Lee as part of the depth and reasoning why it's smart to trade Polanco? Ober was far more established going into 2023 than Lee is. And before you say "well pitchers get hurt so you obviously needed Ober there" I'm going to go ahead and just point you towards Royce Lewis as the clear and obvious rebuttal. And follow that up with a "look at Alex Kirilloff's history and tell me he doesn't need extra depth that Polanco could help provide."

Maeda was not hurt all of 2023. Could've traded him at the deadline for prospects like you claim smart teams need to do. And, again, Louis Varland was in AAA starting so where's the difference between that situation and Lee? Now I'm at Ober and Varland as AAA depth for last year. Not sure how that's significantly different than Lee being AAA depth this year. Other than it doesn't fit your narrative.

Just because those were the only pitchers traded doesn't mean they were the only ones available. There's still rumors that the Marlins are open to moving Luzardo (Padres apparently the most likely destination now), and Julien is a pretty decent comp to Pasquantino who they were rumored to be looking at as the headliner in a deal for him. I didn't say just Julien, but he'd have been my headliner. The point is there were options. There's always options if you're willing to pay the price.

You're not hard and fast on following your own strategy and come up with all kinds of reasons why they shouldn't follow it every time. Until you start following your own strategy every single time maybe you shouldn't attack other posters for not following it.

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

That makes sense on the Maeda/Graterol trade.

If what smart teams do is trade veterans for prospects before they leave for nothing, then, yes, they should've traded him in 2023. There's nothing in your strategy that says "if you've only had them for 1 year then it's not smart to trade them." If you're going to pick and choose who it's ok to lose for nothing then don't attack others for picking and choosing who they feel it's ok to not trade. Especially since Polanco has another year of control left and they weren't going to lose him after this year. The Twins started Ober in AAA last year so wouldn't that be a position of depth considering you've been pushing Lee as part of the depth and reasoning why it's smart to trade Polanco? Ober was far more established going into 2023 than Lee is. And before you say "well pitchers get hurt so you obviously needed Ober there" I'm going to go ahead and just point you towards Royce Lewis as the clear and obvious rebuttal. And follow that up with a "look at Alex Kirilloff's history and tell me he doesn't need extra depth that Polanco could help provide."

Maeda was not hurt all of 2023. Could've traded him at the deadline for prospects like you claim smart teams need to do. And, again, Louis Varland was in AAA starting so where's the difference between that situation and Lee? Now I'm at Ober and Varland as AAA depth for last year. Not sure how that's significantly different than Lee being AAA depth this year. Other than it doesn't fit your narrative.

Just because those were the only pitchers traded doesn't mean they were the only ones available. There's still rumors that the Marlins are open to moving Luzardo (Padres apparently the most likely destination now), and Julien is a pretty decent comp to Pasquantino who they were rumored to be looking at as the headliner in a deal for him. I didn't say just Julien, but he'd have been my headliner. The point is there were options. There's always options if you're willing to pay the price.

You're not hard and fast on following your own strategy and come up with all kinds of reasons why they shouldn't follow it every time. Until you start following your own strategy every single time maybe you shouldn't attack other posters for not following it.

First of all, I was reporting what other teams did to reach their goals.  You were insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team.  I and provided a summary that showed how successful teams were built which refuted your position given all of them but one had derived more production from players acquired as prospects and in every case trading for prospects delivered 2-5X the WAR of trading for established players.   However, I certainly never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance.  You are twisting my position to suit you.  

Trading Polanco was trading from depth.  The net impact is very modest at worst.  Trading away Sonny Gray is a very different than trading away from a position of depth.   You have completely twisted the situation with Maeda.  I wrote that the trade to acquire Maeda was a RP for a starting Pitcher with 4 years of control was a goof move.   I did not say they should not have traded him at the deadline last year.  I was indifferent as to if they traded him and probably posted I would have traded him if the return was good. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

You were insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team. 

However, I certainly never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance. You are twisting my position to suit you.  

 

I have been on this site for over a decade. I've never seen anything like your behavior on this topic. 

You've done nothing but misrepresent my position in order to twist my thoughts into your ham handed segue of your unfinished elementary not applicable research.

You have been doing the same to Chia Pet.

He is not insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team. You are stating that he is and then insisting a particular strategy is key to building a dominant team.

You may have never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance but you certainly never expressed that those teams have done other things when dismissing others that dare to suggest that they consider other things. 

You didn't allow other people to have this wiggle room that you are now seemingly allowing for yourself. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

First of all, I was reporting what other teams did to reach their goals.  You were insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team.  I and provided a summary that showed how successful teams were built which refuted your position given all of them but one had derived more production from players acquired as prospects and in every case trading for prospects delivered 2-5X the WAR of trading for established players.   However, I certainly never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance.  You are twisting my position to suit you.  

Trading Polanco was trading from depth.  The net impact is very modest at worst.  Trading away Sonny Gray is a very different than trading away from a position of depth.   You have completely twisted the situation with Maeda.  I wrote that the trade to acquire Maeda was a RP for a starting Pitcher with 4 years of control was a goof move.   I did not say they should not have traded him at the deadline last year.  I was indifferent as to if they traded him and probably posted I would have traded him if the return was good. 

Riverbrian summed it up nicely. I absolutely never suggested a particualr strategy for building a dominant team, I just stated my opinion about the 2024 Twins trading Polanco for a broken starter, a volatile reliever, and 2 A ball players. I actually continually repeated that all I was doing was talking about the 2024 Twins trading Polanco and how I thought that was a bad move for maximizing the talent of the 2024 Twins.

Then I pointed out that if you aren't going to insist on them following your strategy at all times it's incredibly hypocritical of you to jump on here and attack others for also not following your strategy at all times. We were talking about 1 trade (the Polanco/DeSclafani trade) and you demanded (yes, demanded) that everyone acknowledge your research and that following it was the smart thing to do. You don't believe the strategy needs to be followed at all times so it is nothing but hypocrisy to come on here and demand that the rest of us follow it at all times and not let us decide when it's ok to not follow it the same way you decide it's ok to not follow it sometimes.

Feels like a good place to end this.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

I have been on this site for over a decade. I've never seen anything like your behavior on this topic. 

You've done nothing but misrepresent my position in order to twist my thoughts into your ham handed segue of your unfinished elementary not applicable research.

You have been doing the same to Chia Pet.

He is not insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team. You are stating that he is and then insisting a particular strategy is key to building a dominant team.

You may have never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance but you certainly never expressed that those teams have done other things when dismissing others when they suggest anything outside your narrow lane. You didn't allow other people to have this wiggle room that you are now seemingly allowing for yourself. 

I don't have the data for teams that have only had a (2-3) 90 win seasons in the past 25 years.  Who wants to emulate them although for all I know the acquisition percentages are very similar.  I do have ALL of the data for Oakland, TB, and Cleveland.  You will have to explain to me how compiling the acquisition method for every 90 win team they have had in the past 24 seasons is not applicable.  Are you really going to tell me that the fact 45-55% of their WAR came from players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season does not tell us anything?   It's exceptionally telling.  Excuse me for collecting the information that illustrates how successful teams were built.   Obviously, the facts contradict popular opinion which really rubs some people the wrong way.  We would not be having this dialogue if free agent spending or trading for established players had proven to be essential to building a playoff type team.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't have the data for teams that have only had a (2-3) 90 win seasons in the past 25 years.  Who wants to emulate them although for all I know the acquisition percentages are very similar.  I do have ALL of the data for Oakland, TB, and Cleveland.  You will have to explain to me how compiling the acquisition method for every 90 win team they have had in the past 24 seasons is not applicable.  Are you really going to tell me that the fact 45-55% of their WAR came from players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season does not tell us anything?   It's exceptionally telling.  Excuse me for collecting the information that illustrates how successful teams were built.   Obviously, the facts contradict popular opinion which really rubs some people the wrong way.  We would not be having this dialogue if free agent spending or trading for established players had proven to be essential to building a playoff type team.

It's really simple. 

Unfinished: Your research is unfinished until you use the same approach on the unsuccessful teams as well so you can show the difference between success and failure. What if the unsuccessful teams have similar percentages that you claim are the key to success? You need to be able to compare and contrast to find a correlation to establish FACT. Until you do that. You are half baked no matter how many times you type FACT. Oh... BTW... Define which teams qualify? The Dodgers don't, The Rays do. What other teams don't or do qualify for your research. 

I've said this before. If small market teams typically don't play in the high end of Free Agency and we all agree that they typically don't. How will that category produce significant WAR? If bargain basement shopping in free agency doesn't produce significant WAR. The other Avenues of player acquisition will have to rise to compensate since you are accounting for 100% of the WAR?   

Not Applicable: This discussion is about Jorge Polanco. He is a home grown product. Home grown products occupy a very high percentage of the WAR in your successful team research. What category in your research does he belong in?   

Elementary: Chia Pet and myself have always known that teams will trade players before they reach free agency. Not just the small markets... even the large markets do it. It's a viable strategy executed by almost all 30 teams. Acting like we are clueless in this regard is incredibly insulting. We understand that there are times when you shed expiring contracts and times when you acquire them and every thing in between. Small Market Mid Market or Large Market team. You recognize this because you just stated "However, I certainly never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance". But, we were hammered with your FACT research if we strayed outside of these lines. That is incredibly insulting, disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst.  

And I'll say it again. I've said this to you before. Acquiring players in trades requires giving something (WAR) back. 

Do you want me to go down the list of young talent (WAR) that the Rays traded away? Can we subtract the WAR that the Rays gave up.

Do you want me to go down the list of young talent that Cleveland traded away. Can we subtract the WAR that Cleveland gave up?

BTW... The Royals did not acquire 45 to 55% of their WAR with players acquired Pre 1.5 WAR.

Should we discuss James Shields, Wade Davis, Johnny Cueto and Ben Zobrist? Should we discuss Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi and Sean Manaea?   

If the answer is that we should discuss these things. Create a new topic on your research so we can get back to the discussion of trading Jorge Polanco this off-season.   

 

 

[chpettit19]

50 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't have the data for teams that have only had a (2-3) 90 win seasons in the past 25 years.  Who wants to emulate them although for all I know the acquisition percentages are very similar.  I do have ALL of the data for Oakland, TB, and Cleveland.  You will have to explain to me how compiling the acquisition method for every 90 win team they have had in the past 24 seasons is not applicable.  Are you really going to tell me that the fact 45-55% of their WAR came from players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season does not tell us anything?   It's exceptionally telling.  Excuse me for collecting the information that illustrates how successful teams were built.   Obviously, the facts contradict popular opinion which really rubs some people the wrong way.  We would not be having this dialogue if free agent spending or trading for established players had proven to be essential to building a playoff type team.

Wait a second, you've been going on and on about your research that isn't even complete?! Your data means nothing if you've only done 3 teams, and only done certain seasons. I thought you'd done every team and every season and drawn conclusions from an actual data set. Until you provide data on every team none of this means anything. 

The very simple reason why it doesn't matter is because if all the other teams, even the bad ones, have the same WAR distribution it's not about your strategy being effective, it's about the ability to identify, develop, and maximize potential/talent. Man. This has been a lot of virtual ink wasted over an incomplete project that doesn't actually present any actionable facts.

[Riverbrian]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Wait a second, you've been going on and on about your research that isn't even complete?! Your data means nothing if you've only done 3 teams, and only done certain seasons. I thought you'd done every team and every season and drawn conclusions from an actual data set. Until you provide data on every team none of this means anything. 

The very simple reason why it doesn't matter is because if all the other teams, even the bad ones, have the same WAR distribution it's not about your strategy being effective, it's about the ability to identify, develop, and maximize potential/talent. Man. This has been a lot of virtual ink wasted over an incomplete project that doesn't actually present any actionable facts.

BINGO  

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't have the data for teams that have only had a (2-3) 90 win seasons in the past 25 years.  

Stunning.  So your "research" is not actually research.  You're just playing the sabermetrics game of finding a data set, any data set, that confirms your preexisting opinion.  In this case, that everything ownership and the FO do is absolutely brilliant and beyond criticism.  

Incredible stuff.  Can't wait for you to lecture us again on "facts", should be fun!

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Stunning.  So your "research" is not actually research.  You're just playing the sabermetrics game of finding a data set, any data set, that confirms your preexisting opinion.  In this case, that everything ownership and the FO do is absolutely brilliant and beyond criticism.  

Incredible stuff.  Can't wait for you to lecture us again on "facts", should be fun!

Yes, I see your point, taking a position without a single example is much better than examining every winning season of the only 3 teams in the bottom half of revenue to have success more than once or twice in a season in the past couple decades.  Should we be more interested in the teams that have been successful often or the teams that have had one or two good seasons in the past couple of decades?  I did several of those too just not every last one of them.  Had this data supported what you want done, an example of one team for one season would have been considered evidence.  It does not matter how extensive the data when you are unwilling to consider the data from every playoff team in the past 25 years for the most successful franchises.  

[Woof Bronzer]

On 4/5/2024 at 4:21 PM, Major League Ready said:

Someone actually went through the trouble of gathering a great deal of information that happens to show that all of you that are on the prospects are just prospects train don't understand how teams in the bottom half of revenue have been successful and you don't like these facts being pointed out because it demonstrates the futility of your position.

Going back and reading your previous posts in this thread now that you've admitted that you didn't actually do the research you claimed, thus nullifying every single point you were arguing, to do is a blast.  This one is my favorite so far, in which you pat yourself on the back for doing a "great deal" of research...that you didn't actually do.  Incredible.  

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Going back and reading your previous posts in this thread now that you've admitted that you didn't actually do the research you claimed, thus nullifying every single point you were arguing, to do is a blast.  This one is my favorite so far, in which you pat yourself on the back for doing a "great deal" of research...that you didn't actually do.  Incredible.  

I qualified on more than one occasion that I had all of the information for the four teams that have been the most successful.  It probably took 6 hours to put together.  I did this because of just assuming I understood what strategies had been the most successful, I actually bothered to look.  In contrast, many folks here have taken an ardent position regarding the relatively necessity to employ the various means of acquisition without offering a single example of how a team was constructed.  If you started a new business and I said "hey, would you be interested in knowing the strategies used by the 4 most successful businesses in your industry, would you no thanks, I am not interested in the information unless you also have it on the businesses that have been far less successful?  Now, that's incredible.

[Woof Bronzer]

On 4/8/2024 at 4:47 PM, Major League Ready said:

 I had all of the information for the four teams that have been the most successful.  

The term for this is "cherrypicking".

On 4/8/2024 at 4:47 PM, Major League Ready said:

 If you started a new business and I said "hey, would you be interested in knowing the strategies used by the 4 most successful businesses in your industry, would you no thanks, I am not interested in the information unless you also have it on the businesses that have been far less successful?  Now, that's incredible.

You looked at one variable.  This would be like looking at the 4 "successful" businesses and saying, they all have a website, so that must be the key to success.  What your "research" wouldn't turn up is that several unsuccessful businesses also have websites, so having a website actually is a terrible indicator of success, and your research was absolutely meaningless.  

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The term for this is "cherrypicking".

You looked at one variable.  This would be like looking at the 4 "successful" businesses and saying, they all have a website, so that must be the key to success.  What your "research" wouldn't turn up is that several unsuccessful businesses also have websites, so having a website actually is a terrible indicator of success, and your research was absolutely meaningless.  

You could not be more wrong.  Do you think I only looked at how many players were acquired before they were established.  I posted the method no less than a half dozen times and probably 10.   I broke down the categories of acquisition as follows.

Drafted / International Draft / Acquired via trade or waiver before accumulating 1.5 WAR in a season (1.2 WAR for RPs) / acquired as proven.  This is defined as a player that has produced 1.5 WAR in a season and the last category is free agents.  In other words, I determined the percentage for every type of acquisition as opposed to your interpretation of "one variable",  Posted below is a summary table.  I used the 5 best seasons for the Ray, As, and Guardians and the 3 best seasons because they had far more 90+ win seasons and the 3 best seasons for the Twins, Brewers, and Dbacks. The win table is at the bottom.

What do you have to say now?

Rays  (Summary)	5	Seasons			Cleveland  (summary)	5	Seasons			Oakland  (summary)	5	Seasons
Average Wins	96.8				Average Wins	95.2				Average Wins	100
Drafted	4.2	14.28	37%		Drafted	3.2	6.94	23%		Drafted	3.2	9.42	26%
Intl Draft	0.4	4.06	2%		Intl Draft	3.4	11.62	26%		Intl Draft	0.4	7.92	8%
Trade as Prospect	6.6	11.78	39%		Trade as Prospect	4.6	13.82	40%		Trade as Prospect	5.8	7.72	35%
Trade for Proven	1.2	3.28	9%		Trade for Proven	0.4	3.7	13%		Trade for Proven	1.2	6.58	17%
Free gent	1.8	4.92	13%		Free Agent	0.4	2.66	5%		Free Agent	2.2	5.4	15%
Twins  (summary)	3				Dbacks  (summary)	3				Brewers  summary)	3	Seasons
Average Wins	97				Average Wins	95				Average Wins	95.67
Drafted	6.00	18.43	42%		Drafted	2.67	8.80	22%		Drafted	2.67	9.13	31%
Intl Draft	1.67	4.37	9%		Intl Draft	1.67	4.77	12%		Intl Draft	0.33	0.53	1%
Trade as Prospect	2.67	9.13	22%		Trade as Prospect	3.33	10.60	27%		Trade as Prospect	5.00	9.97	32%
Trade for Proven	1.67	4.33	10%		Trade for Proven	1.67	7.00	16%		Trade for Proven	2.00	5.47	16%
Free gent	3.00	7.70	17%		Free Agent	3.33	10.37	23%		Free Agent	3.00	6.63	20%

# of 91 seasons.

		91
		Wins
1	Yankees	16
2	Dodgers	13
3	Cardinals	10
4	Red Sox	12
5	Braves	10
6	Oakland	10
7	Cleveland	9
8	Tampa	7
9	Astros	7
10	Giants	6
11	Angels	7
12	TWINS	5
13	Mariners	4
14	Rangers	4
15	Phillies	4
16	Cubs	5
17	Brewers	4
18	Nationals	4
19	Dbacks	4
20	Mets	3
21	White Sox	3
22	Tigers	3
23	Blue Jays	3
24	Reds	2
25	Rockies	2
26	Orioles	3
27	Pirates	2
28	Padres	0
29	Marlins	1
30	Royals	1

[Battle ur tail off]

On 4/7/2024 at 7:35 AM, Major League Ready said:

 

The real question should be what is the best way to achieve your goal or how have other teams in the bottom half of revenue achieved your goal because it’s highly unlikely that the 2024 Twins are going to be that team with or without Jorge Polanco.  Can we look back at how other teams managed their roster in achieving this goal?  Of course.  So, let me ask you a question now that you know that virtually every 97 win / bottom half revenue team over the past couple decades produced 45-55% of their revenue from prospects (defined as players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season).  The question is how have the teams in the bottom half of revenue built the dominant / 97+ win type team, which is your stated goal?  Did they trade from depth (Polanco) or trade players they could not afford while they could get value instead of keeping them through the end of their contract? 

If you say the only thing that matters is a WS win.  Should we emulate KC?  If we use your other stated goal of a dominant team with a good chance, let's see if you can actually answer the question of what we should conclude by looking at every team that has achieved the kind of dominance you say is your goal.  

Yes, but they have also traded for pieces they needed, not pieces they don't. This team needs pitching depth in the minors, Right now there is none. This team doesn't need outfielders. Especially corner outfielders. And that was the main piece this trade brought back. 

Also, if Polanco wasn't going to bring what you needed, what is wrong with trying to package him up for something you do need?

A corner outfield prospect - yeah. A good reliever - actually like this. Eating the salary of a terrible pitcher - yuck. 

[Woof Bronzer]

46 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What do you have to say now?

Congratulations for assembling statistically meaningless, cherrypicked data.  

If you are serious about working with data I'd recommend taking a statistics 101 course .  EdX or the like have some good online options, or check your local community education center or community college.  Honestly it's not the most exciting material but it's one of the most helpful courses I ever took as an undergrad.  Once you do a lot of the things posters here have been telling you might make more sense.  Good luck to you on your journey.  

[Major League Ready]

25 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Congratulations for assembling statistically meaningless, cherrypicked data.  

If you are serious about working with data I'd recommend taking a statistics 101 course .  EdX or the like have some good online options, or check your local community education center or community college.  Honestly it's not the most exciting material but it's one of the most helpful courses I ever took as an undergrad.  Once you do a lot of the things posters here have been telling you might make more sense.  Good luck to you on your journey.  

I guess I did ask what you have to say.  However, instead of insisting the problem is my ignorance, why don't you explain to all of us a better way to isolate the impact of acquisition methods.  I would think someone with your deep understanding of business analytic would be eager to illustrate the correct way to show how successful teams are built with the bonus of demonstrating my ignorance.

I would also love to hear why this is cherry picked.  The number of 91 win seasons was provided.  Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay have far more seasons than any of the other teams in the bottom, half of revenue.  It's clear they have been successful more often than other teams.  I took their best seasons.  I only used the best 3 seasons from the Twins, Dbacks, and Brewers because while they have been more successful than some other teams, they had far less 91+ win seasons than Oakland/TB and Cleveland.   How is that cherry picking.  Do we not want to be successful more often?   Do we want to know how the most successful teams have built rosters?  

Please enlightenment us!