ESPN's MLB Future Power Rankings

[jay]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9612015/mlb-future-power-rankings-2013-update?refresh=true

 

[jay]

Today, ESPN's MLB team of Bowden, Law, and Olney released an updated 'Future Power Ranking' based off 5 factors:

[TABLE]

[TR=class: last]

MAJORS (full weight): Quality of current big league roster

[/TR]

[TR=class: last]

MINORS (full weight): Quality and quantity of prospects in their farm system

[/TR]

[TR=class: last]

FINANCE (2/3 weight): How much money do they have to spend?

[/TR]

[TR=class: last]

MANAGEMENT (2/3 weight): Value and stability of ownership, front office and coaching staff

[/TR]

[TR=class: last]

MOBILITY (1/3 weight): Do they have a lot of young, cheap players, or old, immovable guys

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

It places the Twins at 15th with exceptionally strong scores for the minors, mid-range for finance, mgmt, and mobility, and a poor score for MLB talent. How accurate do you think this is?

[DaveW]

I don't see how Mobility is so low..other than Correia and Willingham the roster is basically made up of young cheap players. Obviously you have Mauer, but I wouldn't call him old and immovable. Hell, even Willingham could be moved and if Correia pitches like he did this year he is worth the money as well.

 

The majors is obviously a mess, but what is really nice is the 40+ million the Twins could technically be free to spend this off-season

[Mike Sixel]

About right....on average, they have a GREAT farm system, and one of the three worst MLB teams....so 15 sounds about right.

 

I don't agree, Dave, that they are all that young.....cheap, yes, but not young. Doumit, Mauer, new CF guy whose name I can't spell, most of hte relief pitchers....

[jay]

I don't see how Mobility is so low..other than Correia and Willingham the roster is basically made up of young cheap players. Obviously you have Mauer, but I wouldn't call him old and immovable. Hell, even Willingham could be moved and if Correia pitches like he did this year he is worth the money as well.

 

I'd agree with you here. Mobility is the least weight of the 5 factors and even moving them up to a score of 20 wouldn't be enough to catch the Mets at 13. We're tied with the Nationals at 49.7 points.

[TheLeviathan]

Part of mobility is "immovable". Some of our guys might be young and cheap...but they're not particularly attractive trade options for anyone. Sounds pretty "immovable" to me.

 

Afterall, how many cheap, coveted players do we have on our roster? A couple bullpen guys and Dozier is about it at this point.

[jay]

The rest of the scores and write-ups are behind the Insider paywall, but here's the order of the team rankings:

1 Cardinals

2 Red Sox

3 Rangers

4 Dodgers

5 Rays

6 Cubs

7 Pirates

8 Tigers

9 Braves

10 Orioles

11 Yankees

12 Athletics

13 Mets

14 Nationals

15 Twins

16 Diamondbacks

17 Reds

18 Royals

19 Indians

20 Padres

21 Mariners

22 Astros

23 Giants

24 Jays

25 Phillies

26 Angels

27 Rockies

28 Marlins

29 White Sox

30 Brewers

 

Who's too high, who's too low?

[amjgt]

I'd agree with you here. Mobility is the least weight of the 5 factors and even moving them up to a score of 20 wouldn't be enough to catch the Mets at 13. We're tied with the Nationals at 49.7 points.

 

Dodgers get a 20 for mobility? Ummm... What?

The reply might be, their finances make their huge contracts mute, but that's already baked into their "30" for Finances

 

But to your point, it doesn't matter that much to the overall score.

[amjgt]

I would give Finance a full share rather than 2/3.

[ashbury]

Since I don't have access to the full article I don't have a good feel for how these rankings measure up, but with a higher score for mobility (13) than for major league talent (5) maybe it reflects that you could move guys but not get that much for them.

 

If Arcia and Gibson are no longer counted in their Minors category, they would be added to the bullpen guys and Dozier as cheap fungible (I won't say coveted) players. That doesn't mean they are on the trading block of course, but for the purpose of the ESPN analysis they could be part of why mobility is marginally higher than current quality in the majors.

[amjgt]

One interesting way to view mobility is, if a team put it's entire 40 man roster on waivers, how many would get grabbed by the first team, how many would get grabbed in the first 5 teams, how many would get grabbed by only the top couple "finance" teams, and how many would go completely through waivers unclaimed.

[jay]

I would give Finance a full share rather than 2/3.

 

I would as well. I would also argue that the Twins should be higher than 10 points (ie - 20th highest payroll). They should have the ability to maintain a payroll closer to 10-15th (15-20 points).

[amjgt]

I would as well. I would also argue that the Twins should be higher than 10 points (ie - 20th highest payroll). They should have the ability to maintain a payroll closer to 10-15th (15-20 points).

I think this offseason will show us whether the Twins should be a 10 on finance or upper teens.

[jay]

I think this offseason will show us whether the Twins should be a 10 on finance or upper teens.

 

I think that's true to an extent, but there's a distinct difference between "How much money do they have to spend?" and "How much money do they spend?"

 

I'd like to believe TF was intended to get us better off than the 20th highest payroll ad infinitum.

[jay]

For as much as TR and Gardy are regarded as 'old school', I'm a bit surprised by the 15 score for management. They do mention stability in the metrics though and I don't know a team that has been more stable than the Twins... much to the chagrin of some.

[Beezer07]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the ranking, but the one rule I have with ESPN's mlb coverage is this: Completely ignore anything Jim Bowden has to say.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the ranking, but the one rule I have with ESPN's mlb coverage is this: Completely ignore anything Jim Bowden has to say.

 

Or John Kruck.

[old nurse]

Part of mobility is "immovable". Some of our guys might be young and cheap...but they're not particularly attractive trade options for anyone. Sounds pretty "immovable" to me.

 

Afterall, how many cheap, coveted players do we have on our roster? A couple bullpen guys and Dozier is about it at this point.

 

The cheap guys are all moveable for the price paid for them. Not a block on mobility. They can sign/acquire whatever they want and just dfa what hey don't want without a loss.

[Winston Smith]

Pohlad: “We’re committed to spending [50-52%] of revenue, and with the increase in revenue from the new stadium, there’s going to be ample dollars to pay players. It will make a huge difference" (STAR TRIBUNE, 9/14/07).

Pohlad also said money wasn't an issue on Mackey's show a couple weeks ago.

Prospects alone won't turn this team around so bring some help in this winter we (I) really need/deserve better baseball to watch.

50% is some where around 105 mill. I wouldn't expect Ryan to ever spend all that but getting the payroll up 80-90 range with 3-5 good players would sure make the product much easier to watch.

We have 3 position players with a 1 or better war. Mauer, Florimon and Dozier. Elvis, Mastro and company aren't going to turn this team around. A couple quality position players and a couple quality starting pitchers would sure make for a team easier to watch.

If the prospects are good enough they will find a spot for them.

[amjgt]

I think that's true to an extent, but there's a distinct difference between "How much money do they have to spend?" and "How much money do they spend?"

 

I'd like to believe TF was intended to get us better off than the 20th highest payroll ad infinitum.

 

I don't think there is any way for us to really know how much the Twins have to spend, but this offseason will tell us if payroll reduction has just been a two-year blip on the radar that is due for a correction or if, regardless of what the CAN spend, they feel most comfortable in that 60-70mil range. (which would deservedly give us about a "10" on finance).

 

The Twins have about $44 million tied up next season in their non-rookie contracts.

Burton

Correia

Duensing

Perkins

Doumit

Willingham

Mauer

 

at a minimum, we would be filling out the 25 man roster with 18 guys at roughly 500k each.

 

That gets us to $53 million.

 

Based on Ryan's comments earlier this year, we should be perfectly comfortable in the $80M area. Add in the fact that each team is getting $25M more in TV revenue starting in 2014.

 

Based on the "half the revenue goes to payroll" comments of the past (although it's not like there are any extra expenses incurred to get the $25M), we should at a minimum be very comfortable in the $90M range.

 

I think 99% of us would be shocked if they added $37M in 2014 contracts via free agency, but unless we get up to $80M, I think we are deserving of the "10" that ESPN gave us for finances

[amjgt]

Looks like me and Winston Smith are thinking along the same lines

[nicksaviking]

I don't see how Mobility is so low..other than Correia and Willingham the roster is basically made up of young cheap players. Obviously you have Mauer, but I wouldn't call him old and immovable. Hell, even Willingham could be moved and if Correia pitches like he did this year he is worth the money as well.

 

The majors is obviously a mess, but what is really nice is the 40+ million the Twins could technically be free to spend this off-season

 

As mentioned regarding Mobility, the Twins have cheap guys but they aren't good enough to move. Probably more importantly, they don't have a lot of young guys. Sure they have cheap players but most are 27+. I think the mobility is about right.

 

The Finance is low though considering the Twins aren't the tenth smallest market and they have next to no payroll. Unless this is instead taking into consideration the (apparant league-wide, not just the negatives on this site) perception that the Twins are cheap and unwilling to spend.

 

In other words, the best farm system in the league does not grant automatic playoff spots.

[amjgt]

As mentioned regarding Mobility, the Twins have cheap guys but they aren't good enough to move. Probably more importantly, they don't have a lot of young guys. Sure they have cheap players but most are 27+. I think the mobility is about right.

 

Burton

Correia

Perkins

Doumit

Willingham

Mauer

 

That's 6 guys with a guaranteed contract for next year. And we could probably trade any of them (maybe not Correia).

 

Feels pretty mobile to me.

[nicksaviking]

Anyone have access to the list? The Twins are listed as the 5th worst for MLB talent. Which teams are 1-4? Houston surely but who else has worse MLB level talent, the Cubs? Not Miami, I'd take Yelich, Stanton and their young rotation over what the Twins currently have. The White Sox young staff should also trump the Twins.

[nicksaviking]

Burton

Correia

Perkins

Doumit

Willingham

Mauer

 

That's 6 guys with a guaranteed contract for next year. And we could probably trade any of them (maybe not Correia).

 

Feels pretty mobile to me.

 

The legend for the Mobility catagory is "do they have a lot of young, cheap players, or old immovable guys"

 

Those guys are not young, they are old. Even if you want to interpret the word "movable" as tradeable, Correia, Doumit and Willingham are likely not very tradeable, and Mauer would only be tradeable to to about four teams.

 

But regardless, on a scale of "Young and Cheap" to "Old and Immovable" everyone of those guys is on the "Old and Immovable" side of the fulcrum. I don't see how there is any debate, despite the rebuild, the Twins are not a young team.

[PseudoSABR]

None us would have thought that the Twins and the Nationals would have the same score in a ranking like this a year ago. Much can change in a single calender year...

[amjgt]

Anyone have access to the list? The Twins are listed as the 5th worst for MLB talent. Which teams are 1-4? Houston surely but who else has worse MLB level talent, the Cubs? Not Miami, I'd take Yelich, Stanton and their young rotation over what the Twins currently have. The White Sox young staff should also trump the Twins.

1 - Houston

3t - White Sox

3t - Miami

4 - Milwaukee

5 - Twins

6 - Cubs

[jay]

I think 99% of us would be shocked if they added $37M in 2014 contracts via free agency, but unless we get up to $80M, I think we are deserving of the "10" that ESPN gave us for finances

 

That's both true and fair.

[jay]

Anyone have access to the list? The Twins are listed as the 5th worst for MLB talent. Which teams are 1-4?

 

MLB Talent:

Worst - Astros (22 overall)

t-3rd - Marlins (28 overall)

t-3rd - White Sox (29 overall)

4th - Brewers

5th - Twins

6th - Cubs (and the only other team in bottom 10 ranked above 20 overall)

 

They are all bad. I can see your argument with Stanton/Fernandez, but that's really about all they have. I'd place the other 5 here below the Twins personally.

[nicksaviking]

MLB Talent:

Worst - Astros (22 overall)

t-3rd - Marlins (28 overall)

t-3rd - White Sox (29 overall)

4th - Brewers

5th - Twins

6th - Cubs (and the only other team in bottom 10 ranked above 20 overall)

 

They are all bad. I can see your argument with Stanton/Fernandez, but that's really about all they have. I'd place the other 5 here below the Twins personally.

 

Milwaukee, really? Well if they can't count Braun currently is it fair to count Mauer? Even so, they have Segura, Gomez, Rameriz, Lucroy and Aoki. That doesn't even take into account that their worst starting pitcher is better than the Twins best starting pitcher.

 

The White Sox have a pretty terrible offensive situation, that's fair, though at least they have a solid stable of starters. Again the Marlins? No way, young Mr.'s Stanton, Yelich and Fernandez trump Mauer and Perkins in my book.