What’s Next for the Twins Following the Jorge Polanco Trade?

Apparently we are focused on bringing in a bat. Who may not be any better than Polanco. Go figure. 

32 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't know if more will be traded at the deadline or this offseason, but I will guess that just about all of them that ARE traded at the deadline are available now. If teams don't get the offers they want for Cease, Burnes, Luzardo, Bieber, they'll wait. And aside from Burnes who is on a one year deal, the price likely won't go down come July, because that's when the buyers are more desperate. 

And this is not a disregard for risk mitigation, it's a long term look at risk mitigation. Pay today's prices up front for extended production, instead of paying more over a period of years for repeated short term production. That's pretty much how all owners wanted to pay every player between Bobby Bonilla and Shohei Ohtani. Give up a Brooks Lee now, or an Emmanuel Rodriguez every single year. It's a no brainer.

I think we can agree that there are a lot of teams that need this type of SP.  If what you suggest is true, the front offices of all of the teams apparently don't understand the value proposition / asset management and risk mitigation principles you have cited because none of these SPs have been traded. 

9 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Actually, Lewis was significantly better than Polanco and five other guys were more productive in the 2nd half.  (see below).  He was slightly better than Castro in the 2nd half last year so the statement that Lewis and Polanco were responsible for the 2nd half turnaround is not accurate. 

                                          OPS       wRC+

 

Yes I see the numbers  , thanks ...

I did know there was others who were performing  well , but things were not  quite clicking  , I stated  Polanco and Lewis  came off their injuries and it seemed like it ignited the team to playing better baseball for 2 1/2 plus months  ... 

Polanco   , I'm sure we can replace Polanco's bat , I just hope we can replace his clutch hitting  ...

9 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Our absolute need is a postseason SP but now because of this Polo trade, IMO has seriously jeopardized our chances of landing a front-line SP. Because they refused to put Julien where he belonged at 1B, it'll give this FO an excuse to get a Gallo-type 1B/ DH they are enamored with.

Now is the time to get that post season  pitcher , they will cost more at the deadline and our front office  hasn't been to fortunate  at trading at the deadline  , in all there deadline trades we have been fleeced   ....

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I hear some teams sometimes address starting pitching needs through a trick called free agency, rather than depending solely on trades or minor league promotions. 

 

 

Some teams do that, but other teams don't. Such is life.

8 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

Now is the time to get that post season  pitcher , they will cost more at the deadline and our front office  hasn't been to fortunate  at trading at the deadline  , in all there deadline trades we have been fleeced   ....

Very good point. But IMO it's already a lost cause to find one this off-season.

9 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I hear some teams sometimes address starting pitching needs through a trick called free agency, rather than depending solely on trades or minor league promotions. 

 

 

Did you also hear that there are teams that generate $200M or $300M or even 400M more in revenue?  So, do you somehow not understand that this incremental revenue allows these teams are able to address this need through free agency?  The only other possibility is that you fully understand this exceptionally simplistic concept but made the statement anyway.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Did you also hear that there are teams that generate $200M or $300M or even 400M more in revenue?  So, do you somehow not understand that this incremental revenue allows these teams are able to address this need through free agency?  The only other possibility is that you fully understand this exceptionally simplistic concept but made the statement anyway.

Ive heard the Pohlads were worth 3.8B back in 2015 and recently sold a group of car dealerships for $700+M . At worst, an ace SP will cost $30M/ yr.  Whats a WS championship contending team worth in the bump up in equity vs. a mediocre dumpster fire?

41 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Ive heard the Pohlads were worth 3.8B back in 2015 and recently sold a group of car dealerships for $700+M . At worst, an ace SP will cost $30M/ yr.  Whats a WS championship contending team worth in the bump up in equity vs. a mediocre dumpster fire?

If the Pohlads or any other team believed this financial assumption, they would invest accordingly.  They employee highly qualified financial specialists to assist in these decisions.  Your position assumes they are ignoring the opportunity to make more money.  That's not exactly consistent with the operating practices of any owner in the league.  In general, the owners, and the people they employ have considerably more expertise and experience in this type of assessment than the average baseball fan.  The odds are not in favor of the fans having a better grip on ROI and I doubt they are foregoing the opportunity to make more money in an attempt to put an inferior product on the field.

13 hours ago, Linus said:

Apparently we are focused on bringing in a bat. Who may not be any better than Polanco. Go figure. 

Because you can get a bat as good as Polanco for less money if they're not able to play 2B like Polanco.

40 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If the Pohlads or any other team believed this financial assumption, they would invest accordingly.  They employee highly qualified financial specialists to assist in these decisions.  Your position assumes they are ignoring the opportunity to make more money.  That's not exactly consistent with the operating practices of any owner in the league.  In general, the owners, and the people they employ have considerably more expertise and experience in this type of assessment than the average baseball fan.  The odds are not in favor of the fans having a better grip on ROI and I doubt they are foregoing the opportunity to make more money in an attempt to put an inferior product on the field.

They are 100% ignoring an opportunity to build equity. Case in point, the Houston Astros sucked thru minimal investment for 30+years. The last decade, they invested and ran the business right. Just because you are rich and employ so called experts does that mean you run a business to its fullest potential.  ****** running of business happens all over the world in every industry, every day.  Humans make bad decisions, constantly. 

29 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

So when you said "all of the teams" as a way to pooh-pooh the idea of trading for an actual asset, you didn't really mean "all."

 

Got it.

Granted, the most accurate phrasing would have been outside of 3-4 teams none of the several other teams that need a high-end pitcher have made such a trade.  It makes your previous statement no less ridiculous.  Of course, the teams with 2X the revenue resolve the need by signing free agents.  To suggest this solution is equally valid for the twins is absurd.     

The obvious financial considerations aside, there are many teams with the same needs as the Twins.  Which one of them has elected to pay the premium being asked of these SPs.  Let's just ignore the facts.   The Orioles have a far deeper farm system.  have they done this in support of a team that won 100 games last year.   There are several other teams in the same boat as the Twins.  Which one of them has done what you want to insist should be done?  

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Because you can get a bat as good as Polanco for less money if they're not able to play 2B like Polanco.

Really?  Not trying to be argumentative but what free agent bat out there as good as Polanco is coming here for less than $10 million?

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Granted, the most accurate phrasing would have been outside of 3-4 teams none of the several other teams that need a high-end pitcher have made such a trade.  It makes your previous statement no less ridiculous.  Of course, the teams with 2X the revenue resolve the need by signing free agents.  To suggest this solution is equally valid for the twins is absurd.     

The obvious financial considerations aside, there are many teams with the same needs as the Twins.  Which one of them has elected to pay the premium being asked of these SPs.  Let's just ignore the facts.   The Orioles have a far deeper farm system.  have they done this in support of a team that won 100 games last year.   There are several other teams in the same boat as the Twins.  Which one of them has done what you want to insist should be done?  

I admire the consistency with which you argue so persuasively for the corporate angle in so many disparate posts. .  You have strong views and continually advance those ideas, which is admirable to an extent.

The somewhat confusing part is that I do seem to remember that you once advocated for the Twins to go aggressively after Aaron Nola, which seemed quite out of the ordinary since Nola signed for 7/$172 million plus some added bonuses. I have to admit that I couldn't figure out how that fit in with your usual stances. I actually would have loved that signing for the Twins but also never entertained the thought that the Twins would complete such a deal. 

As far as the post of what is next, you mentioned the Orioles and I wondered if the Twins would soon be for sale.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

 The obvious financial considerations aside, there are many teams with the same needs as the Twins.  Which one of them has elected to pay the premium being asked of these SPs. 

St. Louis definitely did. Detroit, Arizona, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and even the Royals added free agent pitching. This isn't a new strategy for acquiring talent.

14 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I hear some teams sometimes address starting pitching needs through a trick called free agency, rather than depending solely on trades or minor league promotions. 

 

 

We could sign Montgomery and still be $15M under last years budget, the fact he is rarely discussed as an option on this site is wild. Are we all really that resigned to our ownership being cheap asses? I don't want to part with ANY of our young guys when the only reason we would need to is because of ownership's greed

There is most likely a gray area of reasonable response from a corporate P & L perspective to the payroll situation the Pohlads face. From a purely anecdotal and lay perspective the Pohlads sure seem to reside in the most frugal end of that gray area. 

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

St. Louis definitely did. Detroit, Arizona, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and even the Royals added free agent pitching. This isn't a new strategy for acquiring talent.

I was referring to the prospect cost being asked by teams with SPs to trade this off-season.    Many have inquired.  None have been willing to pay the asking price.

2 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

I admire the consistency with which you argue so persuasively for the corporate angle in so many disparate posts. .  You have strong views and continually advance those ideas, which is admirable to an extent.

The somewhat confusing part is that I do seem to remember that you once advocated for the Twins to go aggressively after Aaron Nola, which seemed quite out of the ordinary since Nola signed for 7/$172 million plus some added bonuses. I have to admit that I couldn't figure out how that fit in with your usual stances. I actually would have loved that signing for the Twins but also never entertained the thought that the Twins would complete such a deal. 

As far as the post of what is next, you mentioned the Orioles and I wondered if the Twins would soon be for sale.

I explained that position on more than one occasion.   The Twins by virtue of having so much young/cheap talent had the payroll capacity to add a high-end SP or at least I thought they did until the TV contract situation reared its ugly head.  I even acknowledged that I had gathered all of the data on similar past free agent signings and found they were often a disaster.  I also must concede that I did not think Nola would get 7 years going into his age 31 season.  I was an advocate of signing him through age 35.  To suggest that I was advocating for 7/175 is not accurate.  

The Pohlads financial well-being is of absolutely no consequence to me but I have been around financial decisions my entire career and know what to expect.  I expect them to act like it's a business.  I don't know how to build a house or develop software nor do I have expertise in many other areas requiring specialized training and experience and I don't presume people with that subject matter expertise are incompetent if I don't understand why they do something.  Fans assume exceptionally successful people are incompetent fools when they disagree with how something is done.  That's when I take exception.  

19 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I explained that position on more than one occasion.   The Twins by virtue of having so much young/cheap talent had the payroll capacity to add a high-end SP or at least I thought they did until the TV contract situation reared its ugly head.  I even acknowledged that I had gathered all of the data on similar past free agent signings and found they were often a disaster.  I also must concede that I did not think Nola would get 7 years going into his age 31 season.  I was an advocate of signing him through age 35.  To suggest that I was advocating for 7/175 is not accurate.  

The Pohlads financial well-being is of absolutely no consequence to me but I have been around financial decisions my entire career and know what to expect.  I expect them to act like it's a business.  I don't know how to build a house or develop software nor do I have expertise in many other areas requiring specialized training and experience and I don't presume people with that subject matter expertise are incompetent if I don't understand why they do something.  Fans assume exceptionally successful people are incompetent fools when they disagree with how something is done.  That's when I take exception.  

 

So if a mediocre result for decade’s results is say an annual asset appreciation of say 7% and a top line championship results oriented asset returns 20% appreciation annually, how stupid do you have to be to stick with mediocre results?  

7 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

So if a mediocre result for decade’s results is say an annual asset appreciation of say 7% and a top line championship results oriented asset returns 20% appreciation annually, how stupid do you have to be to stick with mediocre results?  

How are you going to validate your assumption?  If I recommended a client spend $30M as an example, I would need very solid basis / validation for that recommendation if I ever wanted to work for that client again.

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

How are you going to validate your assumption?  If I recommended a client spend $30M as an example, I would need very solid basis / validation for that recommendation if I ever wanted to work for that client again.

I would go thru the past results of other successful investments. KC bought a WS and then tanked. Astros have invested and reinvested to build a dynasty.  Similar market size to us. There are other ones as well.  Rangers bought a couple guys at the deadline in 23 and that investment paid off. Right now, our window is wide open and can be for years if just a couple of the right decisions are made to make a weakness, a strength.  
its not just in baseball, winning franchises appreciate at a higher rate than mediocre ones. 
NFL the Patriots and Chiefs vs. the formerly known as redskins. 
NBA the Cavs, Clippers and Warriors vs, the timberwolves and pelicans. Now the timberwolves are in an ownership transfer and they made an investment and that is already paying off. The asset value since the sale price was set, the has already increased more than expected. Why would that happen? Its simple, revenue increased. 

10 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

I would go thru the past results of other successful investments. KC bought a WS and then tanked. Astros have invested and reinvested to build a dynasty.  Similar market size to us. There are other ones as well.  Rangers bought a couple guys at the deadline in 23 and that investment paid off. Right now, our window is wide open and can be for years if just a couple of the right decisions are made to make a weakness, a strength.  
its not just in baseball, winning franchises appreciate at a higher rate than mediocre ones. 
NFL the Patriots and Chiefs vs. the formerly known as redskins. 
NBA the Cavs, Clippers and Warriors vs, the timberwolves and pelicans. Now the timberwolves are in an ownership transfer and they made an investment and that is already paying off. The asset value since the sale price was set, the has already increased more than expected. Why would that happen? Its simple, revenue increased. 

Let's look at it this way.  The hypothesis is pretty straight forward given the argument is that keeping the payroll around 2023 levels would result in a higher valuation of the team.  How are we going to prove this specific assertion.  We would have to find enough data points of this specific set of circumstances.  Plus, we would have to have valid examples of valuation.  We don't have actual sales of organizations which would be the best indicator.  We have valuations based on partial information.  A valid valuation would at a minimum require a very accurate accounting of profitability.  The people producing those valuations certainly do not have this information.

Valuations are primarily driven by net profitability and the certainty of future profits.  The premise that investing those profits in personnel will drive up the valuation contradicts the fundamentals of valuation.   If the only way fans are satisfied is by the team investing all of their profits in personnel, the team has virtually no value when they are successful on the field.  The only time they would be profitable is when they were losing.   Of course, we can make a case for an investment in a single year which is an entirely different argument.  I think we would all like to see them eat it this year and that might have happened if not for what happened in 2020-21

47 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Let's look at it this way.  The hypothesis is pretty straight forward given the argument is that keeping the payroll around 2023 levels would result in a higher valuation of the team.  How are we going to prove this specific assertion.  We would have to find enough data points of this specific set of circumstances.  Plus, we would have to have valid examples of valuation.  We don't have actual sales of organizations which would be the best indicator.  We have valuations based on partial information.  A valid valuation would at a minimum require a very accurate accounting of profitability.  The people producing those valuations certainly do not have this information.

Valuations are primarily driven by net profitability and the certainty of future profits.  The premise that investing those profits in personnel will drive up the valuation contradicts the fundamentals of valuation.   If the only way fans are satisfied is by the team investing all of their profits in personnel, the team has virtually no value when they are successful on the field.  The only time they would be profitable is when they were losing.   Of course, we can make a case for an investment in a single year which is an entirely different argument.  I think we would all like to see them eat it this year and that might have happened if not for what happened in 2020-21

Is that you Joe Pohlad?

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Let's look at it this way.  The hypothesis is pretty straight forward given the argument is that keeping the payroll around 2023 levels would result in a higher valuation of the team.  How are we going to prove this specific assertion.  We would have to find enough data points of this specific set of circumstances.  Plus, we would have to have valid examples of valuation.  We don't have actual sales of organizations which would be the best indicator.  We have valuations based on partial information.  A valid valuation would at a minimum require a very accurate accounting of profitability.  The people producing those valuations certainly do not have this information.

Valuations are primarily driven by net profitability and the certainty of future profits.  The premise that investing those profits in personnel will drive up the valuation contradicts the fundamentals of valuation.   If the only way fans are satisfied is by the team investing all of their profits in personnel, the team has virtually no value when they are successful on the field.  The only time they would be profitable is when they were losing.   Of course, we can make a case for an investment in a single year which is an entirely different argument.  I think we would all like to see them eat it this year and that might have happened if not for what happened in 2020-21

Investing in personnel is akin to hiring another salesman or accountant. Hiring a ballplayer that wins a cy young is night and day different. Joe blow accountant doesn't sell a million jerseys with his name on the back. He doesn’t increase attendance. No one buys a season streaming pass to watch him count the beans. 
as a business, if you are used to having a 10% profit margin on X thats .1X profit.  If you change what you invest in and that leads to 2x value over time while maintaining 10% profit margin year over year, absolutely no one but the Pohlads would say no.