Otto von Ballpark

I'm not so sure the Cano and Greinke signings count as "bad things" just because their teams have expressed a desire to get out of the back ends of the contracts. Every team wants to get out of the back ends of contracts if they can, and at least Cano's and Greinke's performances have made that somewhat feasible for their respective clubs -- they've gotten good production out of both to date. I'm also not sure how you define "mid-market" but if you include Seattle and Arizona, there are probably other examples too. Washington signing Scherzer, Texas signing A-Rod -- both of those turned out great in terms of player performance/value. There have been bad deals too -- Detroit signing Fielder (although they got out of some of it), Baltimore signing Chris Davis, Washington signing Werth, Colorado signing Hampton -- but those turned out bad because the players/terms turned out bad, not because of the team's market. Obviously a big market team can better absorb a contract if a player under-performs, but if the Twins think Harper and Machado project like A-Rod or Cano type talents at age 25, they probably shouldn't be afraid to offer up a big deal for them. (Keep in mind Cano's 10 year contract would be over now if he had signed it at the same age as Harper and Machado are now.)

FWIW, no extensions for young guys would pay much more than they are already projected to make in 2019. Unless you are suggesting they should spend $X less than budget this season, so they could spend $X over budget in future seasons, but generally that doesn't seem to be how MLB accounting works. I would never trust it to actually happen.

FYI, while there are 180+ days in the MLB season, a full "service time" season is just 172 days. So with 12 more days in MLB, Buxton will be at 3 full years service time. And unfortunately for him, every player is capped at a max of 172 service days each year. So even if Buxton is on the roster for 186 days or however long the season is in 2019, he will only get 172 added to his previous total -- so he would be at 3.160 in B-Ref terminology (12 to get to 3.000, plus 160 more). https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/4043

To add to what Levi said, "he's our starter" is pretty standard issue "we believe in you" rah-rah type stuff. Nothing wrong with that talk by itself -- but if it could be perceived that you are using it in an attempt to coerce him into signing a contract, like your example, then I think it crosses a line right now. I think the Twins will have to settle for simply avoiding a grievance, and hopefully avoiding an acrimonious arbitration hearing, with Buxton this winter. Edit to add: the Twins could make him a good 1 year offer in arbitration to help smooth the relationship, without bringing up the subject of an extension.

I think you suggested 6 years, $80 mil as a possibility for an extension last winter: http://twinsdaily.com/articles.html/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/the-time-for-a-buxton-extension-is-now-r6327 Using that as a guide for illustration purposes, I don't know which side was more responsible for the lack of a deal last winter, but if the Twins were the ones more resistant of 6/80 coming off 2017, that suggests they pegged his value closer to 6/50 then. And they'd be pretty nuts to offer 6/50 again coming off 2018, no? On the flip side, if Buxton balked at 6/80 last winter, I'm not sure it makes sense for him to accept 6/50 now either, under the present circumstances. He'd be giving up serious value, in part tied to the Twins service time decision. And yes, it could be a bit insulting for the Twins to revisit those negotiations immediately after the service time move. No matter how much you say you still believe in him, unless you are meeting his demands from last winter, the subtext of such an approach will be "Hey, I know you found our offer to be too low last winter, but how do you like it now that we have more leverage?" (Mind you, I don't think the Twins are doing that, but it illustrates why any extension just isn't feasible at the moment. The reverse could be just as insulting -- Buxton reopening talks now could be like circling back to a prom date you previously declined, after exhausting all other possibilities.)

Worth keeping in mind that coaches and analytics folks are generally taking significantly less money to work in pro baseball than they could make in another field. Not unlike how most minor league players work for less than they could get elsewhere too, just on a different scale. MLB teams don't have to offer these guys the same pay and benefits that they could make elsewhere -- they are a prestige entertainment industry. Also, these additional salaries could collectively get "into the millions" like you guess ($1-2-3 million), and that still wouldn't make a meaningful dent relative to a $130 mil MLB player payroll. They certainly aren't spending $10-20-30 million annually on coaches and analytics people, which is generally the amounts that most critics fear they will be below average on MLB payroll. (Mind you, I am not arguing that here myself, just discussing what I think are realistic estimates for other expenses.) I also think you are perhaps shorting the previous front office. Yes, we know they didn't invest much in analytics, but that was much more of a philosophical resistance than a financial one. And by 2007-2008 they started making notable capital investments in Latin America, Ft. Myers, then Target Field, etc., including that new Dominican academy. The chief financial criticism of the old front office was pretty much the same as the one being leveled against the new one: that they are too low/conservative on MLB payroll. Frankly, if the new front office is using other expenses as a justification for where they set the MLB payroll, they are probably more like the old front office in that area than they are different.

"Some degree" is probably an incredibly small degree. It's just a reality that MLB player salaries dwarf these other expenditures. Average MLB team payroll is in the range of $130+ million annually. None of the expense items you list could likely equal even 1% of that in a single year. An expense like Elizabethton is a drop in the bucket: $300k upfront, $50k per year for 10 years: https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Government/2018/10/09/Elizabethton-City-Council-may-reach-agreement-Thursday-with-the-Minnesota-Twins-on-Joe-O-Brien-stadium-upgrades Coaching staff salaries are maybe $50k per year too? Depending on level? And it seems doubtful that there are significant new Statcast costs in 2019 (Target Field was outfitted during the previous regime). The Twins newest Dominican academy was reported as costing $18 mil, but that was 2 years ago (again, the previous regime) and split between the Twins and Phillies: https://www.mlb.com/news/twins-open-dominican-republic-baseball-academy/c-213683558 And it's not as if the average team is investing zero dollars in these things -- they are likely adding new Statcast equipment, new coaches, new facilities too. Even if the Twins are spending above average in these areas now, it's doubtful they are above that average enough to justify any meaningful drop from that $130+ mil average annual player payroll.

Not sure if it's really any kind of inefficiency -- maybe more just the market reality. Players in their last 1-2 years of arbitration are generally overpaid via arbitration, particularly at corner positions (Cron) or coming off average or worse seasons (Parker, Schoop). Thus they tend to become available. An older free agent like Cruz faces a similar market effect.

Practically speaking, there's just no way for the money to be "right" this offseason. To make sense from the Twins side, it would have to reflect a lot of uncertainly given Buxton's extremely poor recent performance and health. But to make any sense from Buxton's side, it would have to ignore a lot of that. Note this isn't a commentary about the Twins, or Buxton, or any animosity between them -- it's just a practical reading of circumstances. Teams and players virtually never agree to extensions after a bad/injured seasons, especially not on the level of Buxton's 2018 -- there's just no middle ground or overlap with their competing interests right now. Fortunately, with 4 years control through 2022, it's nothing that can't be reversed by reasonable health/performance in 2019.

Obviously there's no way to prove either hypothetical, but I suspect that quite a few other organizations would have approached things differently before Sep. 1st and at least avoided the acrimony, even if the end result was similar (extra year of service gained). Not rushing him back in May, shutting him down on August 1st, etc.

FWIW, while the 2013 Twins were fairly punchless, they were still aggressive swingers, ranking 2nd worst in MLB with a 23.0% K rate. And actually, the Twins haven't necessarily achieved much more punch *yet* than their 2013 compatriots. The 2018 squad ranked 21st in MLB in isolated power for non-pitchers. The 2013 Twins ranked 20th in that measure. Hopefully Cruz (and Cron, and Schoop) can improve that significantly in 2019.

"Kirk Cousins Is Not Better Than Joe Montana. So Let’s Fix Passer Rating." https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kirk-cousins-is-not-better-than-joe-montana-so-lets-fix-passer-rating/

For what it's worth, the White Sox probably don't even have to ask Reinsdorf about money right now. They are looking at a ~$71 mil payroll for 2019 at the moment, with only Tim Anderson guaranteed money after 2019. They could sign Machado or Harper to a mega-deal and still be under the median MLB payroll, and have no trouble remaining there for the foreseeable future: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fbi0znpmRfiFPb0L-WQD9LRQEcJHAG7122SoVnYgBeI/pubhtml Obviously, they also still project as only a 70-win team for 2019, so it's not clear that Machado or Harper alone would change their fortunes too much. Still a lot of holes in the lineup and all over the pitching staff. I'm not particularly worried about them. And of course, if one thinks a Machado or Harper mega-deal may be of questionable value long-term, it's tempting to want the White Sox to sign one and be tied to it for the next 10 years...

I think it's worth asking, "how wild?" For example, Buxton's wild swings in monthly OPS (as well as his wild swings in general ) seem noteworthy. Rosario isn't at that level, of course. And especially not based on just 1 season. But I suspect there could be players who fall outside the normal range of streakiness over larger samples, and it might affect their value/forecast somewhat.

I know Rogers had 2.2 bWAR / 1.9 fWAR last year, and he has 4 years of control, but even if you think he is very good, that level of output is pretty unsustainable for relievers over the long run. Only 3 relievers averaged 2 fWAR per season over the last 4 years: Jansen, Chapman, and Betances -- and they all required peak seasons of nearly 3+ WAR to do it (they also all have career K/9 rates of 13.5 or higher, vs. Rogers peak of 9.9 so far). By comparison, Polanco posted 1.5 bWAR / 1.3 fWAR in just half a season last year, and has the same 4 years of club control. Kepler also has 4 years of control, and posted 2.8 bWAR / 2.6 fWAR last year, and has averaged 2.3 bWAR / 1.7 fWAR the last 3 years too. Even pedestrian careers from Polanco and Kepler could easily best the WAR of an elite Rogers.

Kepler has 0.7, 0.0, 0.7 WAA (Wins Above Average) the last 3 years per B-Ref -- we hope that goes up, for sure, but that's a starter level performance, definitionally average or a bit above. As for your "among contenders" qualifier, in 2018, only 3 teams in the AL reached even 1.0 WAA in RF as a team. Same for LF. So while 0.7 WAA isn't great, it isn't bad either.

https://www.mlb.com/news/nelson-cruz-explains-why-twins-are-good-fit/c-302313998

Sano's last 275 PA before the 2017 leg injury (June 1st - August 17th, 2017): .245/.313/.442, 95 wRC+. Probably about replacement level performance, given his defense. His entire 2016 wasn't much better: .236/.319/.462, 107 wRC+ Sano just hasn't shown an approach that can sustain MLB success at the plate yet. EDIT TO ADD: And to Nick's point, if his 2016-2017 struggles are attributable to the same leg/hamstring issues as he had in 2018, it's probably just as concerning as swing/approach issues, maybe even moreso.

I didn't read the original comment as meaning AA or AAA were too much for him. I read it as, there were/are obvious issues with Sano that required drastic action. In this case, getting him close to Fort Myers to control his diet and workouts (as well as try to rebuild his swing -- his issues go beyond conditioning). Still doesn't bode well for Sano's current state. I hope you're right about him rebounding, of course.

Walsh missed a 27 yard attempt. You don't see sub-30 yard FG misses every week. There were 3 in the entire NFL this season, out of 208 tries, or a 98.6% success rate. I admit the circumstances surrounding the Diggs play were more unusual, but at its base element, it was a defensive back missing a tackle and a WR going in for a TD, which isn't all that unusual either. (The Vikings didn't even need the TD to win, they were only down by 1, so Diggs could have just gone out of bounds for a FG attempt too. Not that I'm confident a Vikings kicker would have made it! )

To be fair, they had another playoff win snatched away by a miracle on behalf of the Seahawks (the Blair Walsh game).

FWIW, the Angels did make an offer to Corbin before he signed with the Nats. It is quite possible that Harvey and Cahill were not Plan A.

Even with the Astros in the same division, Fangraphs has given the Angels a 26-33% chance at the postseason each of the last 3 opening days. Also, the Astros could be losing Morton and Keuchel this winter, and Verlander and Cole are FA next winter. They may not be dominant forever. Additionally, while you keep saying the Angels pitching specifically has been holding them back for unspecified non-statistical reasons, it seems just as likely that their offensive black holes could shoulder some of that blame. They have Trout and Simmons, but they have also trotted out some awful position player performers the last few years - Valbueba, Calhoun, Espinosa, Revere, Pujols, etc. Their pitching lacks star power for sure, but it can be just as limiting to have a few stars surrounded by black holes like their offense has had. I don't think it is easy for the Angels the next couple years, but I also don't think it is easy to rebuild around a Trout trade either.

Keep in mind, Trout already signed away 3 free agent years with the Angels (by service time, he could have been a free agent after the 2017 season). That's no guarantee he will re-up there, of course, but it also suggests he is not necessarily hell-bent on testing the open market, and/or seeking a particular destination above all else.

Setting aside how many teams even have "4 to 5 good to great prospects" to trade for Mike Trout -- You do realize the Angels have the financial resources to potentially re-sign Trout, right? This isn't a small- or even mid-market situation.