arby58

It depends. Julien wasn't tailing off as the year went on, which would be the case if the league was catching up to the player. Lewis, sure - but the numbers were so good over the timeframe that it's hard to say an .820 OPS is better than his .921 and 150 OPS because he did it over a full season. Bottom line - there is no way in Hades the Twins would trade Lewis for Steer straight up, and I doubt they would Julien for him either.

Well, Lewis, of course. 2.4 WAR in 217 at bats. 15 HRs in 40 percent of a full season's at bats. .309 batting average, .921 OPS, 150 OPS+. Those are all star caliber numbers.

Steer is the guy most people look at. He had a nice year. He had a full season (582 AB) so 3.0 WAR. His OPS was .820. There really isn't anything statistically where he graded out better than the twins rookies Lewis and Julien - they both had higher OPS. In far fewer at bats, Lewis had a 2.4 WAR and Julian 2.6 with more than 300 and 200 fewer at bats respectively.

I would wonder what is the basis for the 'teams have become more reluctant to trade these top prospects?' Any analytics behind that or just a SWAG?

It happens. This is from an article on MLB.com about a week ago, about 'stars who were traded as top prospects.' Note it only included players who have already gotten to at least 15 WAR in the MLBs, so that is why there isn't anybody after 2015, and no doubt there are others who did not perform up to that standard at the MLB level: Dansby Swanson: AZ to ATL, December 2015 Trea Turner: SD to WSH, June 2015 Anthony Rizzo: SD to CHC, January 2012 Carlos Carrasco: PHI to CLE, July 2009 Gio González: CHW to OAK, January 2008 Elvis Andrus: ATL to TEX, July 2007 Hanley Ramírez: BOS to MIA, November 2005 Scott Kazmir: NYM to TB, July 2004 Adam Wainwright: ATL to STL, December 2003 Kenny Lofton: HOU to CLE, December 1991 Moises Alou: PIT to MON, August 1990

Agree - he's a keeper. We're not getting a solid starting pitcher for less. My question is who to keep, Julien or Lee? Julien has proven himself at the MLB level, Lee is a prospect - maybe with a higher ceiling, but still not proven. I like to take the safe side, keep the more known quantity, even if Lee has more upside potential. YMMV, and I don't disagree with that.

This 'he was here at age this and he was here at age that' is interesting, but it is not necessarily indicative of future performance. Kirby Puckett was in A league ball at age 23. He was in the majors at age 24 and did ok. Julien was in the majors at age 24 and did ok as well. We don't know about Lee - who has never had an OPS above .850 at ANY level of professional baseball.

The flip side of this is that Julien made it to AAA and MLB at age 24. Lee will likely start next year at AAA at age 23. It's not as if Lee wasn't playing baseball those other years, he just did it for longer in college than Julien.

Problems with the clear path: Lee is a switch hitter, so what's the platoon point of view for 2B? Julien played 3/4ths of his MLB games at 2B, not DH, so I don't think the Twins see him in that role. Correa and Lewis are (unless injured) going to be at SS and 3B. You already have Castro as a backup there if needed. My guess is they keep one of either Polanco or Farmer, so still no room for Lee. The point about 'how will you pay all these guys at arbitration' is to move some of them so it isn't an issue. I still think Lee is the likely candidate, given his value but not yet proven ratio.

There is evidence that Julien improved his defense as the year went on, and the Twins weren't 'hiding' him at DH - he played 75 at 2B versus 27 at DH. The point about Lee's hitting is valid - he's not been above .850 OPS at ANY level of professional baseball, while Julien was .839 at the MLB level last year. I'm taking the bird in the hand and shopping Lee.

Well, duh - the point of the post-season is it is a crapshoot, I recall you saying that. Winning 84 games isn't that difficult - your whole point of view is the Twins are doomed because they are cutting their budget. They can win 84 games, and they have enough pitching to win a series against most any team if it holds up.

Incorrect. The 2003 Florida Marlins, with the 25th ranked payroll, won the World Series. Imagine that - only 5 teams had lower payrolls, and they won it all. Other teams are close - 2002 Angels were 15th, 2015 Royals were 17th, as were the 2017 Astros. If you look at both teams in the World Series, there are more than a few that fall into the 18-30 range.

Players are in the here and now, not 'how many world series have they won in the past?' The closest here and now is last year, when the Cardinals were a last place team that lost 91 games. Speaking of which, St. Louis ranked 16th in payroll last year, the Twins 17th - and yet the Twins won 16 more games. Payroll is everything, right?

Pagan was when it sunk in? OK, you lost me there. He was a relief pitcher who most people would have traded for a bag of balls after 2022. He was good in 2023, but the money the Reds played for him? The Twins have done well finding guys like Thielbar and Stewart - reclamation projects - that don't carry nearly the risk, salary-wise of Pagan.

If so, what was so 'special' for Sonny about St. Louis? They were a last place team in 2023, 20 games under .500. They have added two starting pitchers with ERAs near or above 5.00 (Gibson and Lynn) and nothing else, really, other than Gray. Their MVP last year (Goldschmidt) is 36. Why would that look more 'special' to him? The answer, of course, is $75m/3. The Twins weren't going to give him that - it had nothing to do with where the team is going. I'd make a straight up bet right now that the Cardinals have a worse record than the Twins next year.

Nobody says payroll 'has zero impact on the quality of the team on the field.' Of course it does - but it is far from the only factor. I've explained how teams with young star players can do very well with a limited payroll (that was the Diamondbacks and to some extent the Twins last year). To suggest, however, that if you don't increase your payroll you cannot be a winning and competing team - that's also not true. It's all about smart spending. There are plenty of examples, recent and past, of teams overpaying for players based on past results, and then when they regress - well, you know. The thing I dislike about your comment is this 'endless mediocrity' claim - which I guess depends on your definition of mediocrity. The Twins have won their share of division titles, and this year they won a play-off series and were very competitive with the ultimately World Series winner. Funny thing - the pitcher who let them down against Houston was Sonny Gray, who lots of people think they should have shelled out big bucks to secure. The other thing is this 'conscious decision to go backwards.' Nobody in their job does that. You really think Falvey and the rest of the crew are consciously working to fail? If so, you're unlike any other private sector person I ever worked with - it sort of effects your way of making a living, right? Living within a budget and doing the best you can - yeah, I get that, I have lived that as a budget director for a $16 billion operation. Sometimes we had to cut budgets - we never went into that process expecting to fail. I doubt the Twins do either.

Whatever. Look, I did revenue projections for a couple decades using ARIMA models. I understand the utility (and lack thereof) of regression models. They are not the be-all and end-all to these discussions. If they were, well, you know, the World Series would always have a top (pick a number) team payroll-wise, and that number would never include 21 (i.e., the Diamondbacks). There will ALWAYS be outliers, especially in baseball, the way it limits salaries for players in their early years who may very well be the best players in the game.

Regression analysis describes linear relationships and is susceptible to outliers - like last year's Padres, Mets, and Yankees, and, on the other end of the spectrum, last year's Diamondbacks. Wailing and gnashing of teeth over a budget cut and 'proving' it means the Twins can't win is sophistic, even when backed with regression 'evidence.'

I read the whole study - the line of reasoning you seem to favor is the Twins should go out and make a splash with big free agent signings, and the part I quoted to you says that is not necessarily the case. This 'the Twins don't really want to compete' is backed by what evidence exactly? Given the division titles they have won, they want to compete, but they have a budget to do so. As a former budget director of a $16 billion operation, I can tell you that is the way the real world works. Funny, I looked at the metrics of organizations that spent more all the time and didn't hit the industry benchmarks for performance and outcomes - but they spent more. Regression analysis is not the Holy Grail - it is, after all, based on the past with the expectation that similar results will occur - only they don't always (hence the Mets, Padres, and Yankees from last year). The Twins have a nice core of young players that will not cost much for several years. They can also unload some veterans who will probably not out-perform that young core. Cutting payroll this year, in this set of circumstances, is not a 'they don't want to compete' conclusion.

Some growth will be tied to arbitration, some contraction can be tied to the baseball way of rookies and pre-arbitration players not getting much in ways of increases. Every team is different. Arizona can be good with its existing salary structure because they have so many good young players. The Twins benefit if Lewis, Julien, and Wallner take the salary places of, say, Polanco, Farmer, and Gallo. Just by those moves alone you about cut what the Twins say they want to cut to reduce payroll - and you can even replace last year's salary for Gray, for example. The 'you can't cut and win' mantra is shallow.

That's a pretty lop-sided point of comparison - on a standard deviation basis, there is a huge disparity between the very top and very bottom. We're not talking about the Twins entering into the very bottom zone, even with the cuts foreseen. The point is you don't have to be number 1, 2, 3 - or even 4, 5, 6 - to win the World Series.

I quoted directly from the Harvard study: "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008). This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages. Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation. Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names." So now the standard is 'in contention' not makes the play-offs? Set the parameters for that - my guess is 20-ish teams would meet that standard. You know who weren't in contention? Numbers 1, 2, and 3.

I was using your numbers - you didn't list #5 as making the play-offs. There are 12 teams in the play-offs. That means 6 teams that were not in the top 10 were in, including number 21. Did you actually read the Harvard study? It suggests this 'spend big on a few free agents' mantra, which you seem to encourage, isn't statistically significant in terms of actual results. Better to be smart than just spend big. Ask the Padres and Mets fans about that.

Agree - it's not how much money you spend, it's whether you spend it wisely. Gray, when they traded for him, was wise spending. Last year, Farmer and Solano were wise spending - Gallo was worth a flyer and had his moments. I highly doubt Pagan is worth what the Reds spent for him - look at what the Twins unearthed with Stewart last year. I sort of feel the same about Maeda. My guess is they will trade for a 4-5 pitcher who is younger and has less risk. We shall see. That said, the track record with high priced starting pitchers is not great. This front office seems to get that, even if some fans don't.

I'll take that bet.