Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Major League Ready

Verified Member
  • Posts

    3,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Major League Ready

  1. If we are going to make a case on pure assumption like we would have extended Pressly, it would be equally fair to say the money that would have gone to Pressly would have resulted in not signing Cruz who produced 4.3 WAR compared to Pressly's 1.6 WAR. I am not saying either form of speculation is sold critical thinking but they are on the same plane.
  2. I am not sure where you are going with this. Had they signed SPs to a 3 year deal 3 years ago they would be free agents. Obviously, the 4 plus year guys would still be under contract for a year. There was exactly on SP that got a 4 year deal and that was Nathan Eovaldi. Signing 3 SPs in a given year is nearly impossible. Demand always far exceeds supply so expecting us to land 3 good SPs in 1 year is not realistic. Anything is possible but this is unrealistic. BTW, the only SP to sign a longer contract was Patrick Corbin and he was replacement level last year. He could bounce back but I am glad we don't have him on the books for 3 more years. I also recall people being furious when we didn't land Bumgarner. He produced 1 war for 2020-21. How happy would we be with him taking up IPs the next 3 years?
  3. Me too. That Chpettit19 is quite the thunder thief. He must have quite a stockpile of thunder. Seriously, their plan appears to me to put a decent team on the field this year while building a pitching staff that will support sustained success. If you evaluate "their plan" based solely on this year it's hard to imagine what they are doing. The problem is their plan is puts significant weight on long-term success. Therefore, what is assumed to be their plan is likely not at all their plan.
  4. You make an undeniable point which I fully understood long before these threads about this CBA illustrated your point. However, it does depend on the environment. I spent a dozen years doing corporate reorgs which is why I so obnoxiously don't except these refusals to address the facts. In that environment the facts get thoroughly researched and vetted and the assumptions fully validated. Holding on to positions that are not supported by the facts is simply not accepted. You either get on board or get run over. I don't have a problem when the issue is people are unaware of the issues / facts. In this case, the facts are about as clear as it gets. They are in the form of specific demands. The implications / conclusions always have room to be debated but obviously not a single person here would try to suggest the terms were not detrimental to parity. This sort of refusal to address the facts never leads to harmony so pardon me for being a prick about it. Putting your shoulder to the wall is not a good way to earn respect or resolve any issues in any any context / environment.
  5. Doc, I appreciate that you are at least examining the issues. I literally could not get several posters here to even acknowledge the issues when I asked repeatedly if raising the CBT, lowering revenue sharing, and reducing years of control would reduce parity and hurt the game long-term. I got condescending answers and absolute refusal (literally) to actually address the issues. These issues are the primary reason we are where we are. I happened to be in the car on Monday when “High Heat” (Christopher Russo) was on the radio. Of course, this was just ahead of the player’s proposal. He opened the show by addressing these terms. He said in no uncertain terms that this CBA process was not and should not go anywhere until the players come of these issues which “fundamentally change the game” in an adverse way. He spent 5 minutes on this point. Why is anyone surprised negotiations have gone nowhere. Perhaps more importantly, why should we want them to go anywhere under these terms? Make no mistake, this impasse is a product of the player’s insisting on terms that are bad for the game. I will once again invite anyone to dispute these terms are bad for the game and therefore the owners holding out is good for us as fans.
  6. What you are saying is perfectly reasonable and I would not disagree this is a form of parity. Here is where we don’t necessarily disagree but differ in terms of what we desire to get out of parity. I find more value in policy that promotes a more equal chance to put a playoff or contending team on the field. That should be the goal IMO instead of a very modest impact in the form of slightly reducing the gap in number of victories top to bottom. Is this really something we should value as fans …. Our team in need of a rebuild eking out 70 wins instead of 65. Should we feel better about such a plan. Based on the unrest here when the Twins were playing veterans last year instead of prospects, I don't see this as great for the team or their fans. At the risk of repeating myself, I would prefer to distribute revenue sharing based on a 3 year running average of payroll. In other words, instead of distributing X dollars to 10 teams or whatever number receive revenue sharing, distribute 2x to the teams that are spending. This practice would elevate the impact of revenue sharing for low revenue teams that were actually making a run at contention. Same impact without the inherent potential abuse as a salary floor. IE signing a player and trading them while retaining the salary.
  7. I have no objection to anything you have said. This all stems from a long series of posts in different threads where people insist a given approach is necessary to reach the playoffs. Ok, show me examples where this approach has succeeded. More importantly, they insist the FO is incompetent because they won't follow the approach they prescribe. I have done the research and I am not guessing in terms of how these teams were built which is why I ask people to give examples of success if they are going to insist the FO is incompetent. Show me where big free agent acquisitions, especially more than 1 have led to playoff success for a below ave revenue team. The fact is that success among this subset of teams has been by far most influenced by players that were drafted follow by players acquired as prospects (generally meaning they traded established players to get them) followed by modest priced free agents. High-end free agents and trades for well-establish players are a very small part in comparison. So, when someone insists what we need to do is follow practices that have proven to be ineffective and the FO is incompetent, I think it's reasonable to ask for some empirical proof of concept.
  8. Since 2003 eight different teams have exceeded the CBT threshold. However, it's generally been 2-3 year. Only the Dodgers and Padres exceeded it in 2021 and the Padres only paid and extra 1.29M as a result. The Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs were above in 2019.
  9. How would we prevent teams from getting creative and working around the system? If I were a GM in that situation I would sign a big name free agent to an offer they could not refuse. Then, I would trade them for some great prospects while retaining that player's salary. Can you imagine what you could get from a team up against the CBT threshold for Max Scherzer at $100K year? Of course, they could also take on bad contracts from large markets. That would allow them to sign a different player that hopefully is productive which would in effect increase the gap in parity.
  10. A floor does literally nothing to change the capacity / ability to spend for the bottom 20-25 teams. Therefore, it would not change the disparity in the context of how relative revenue impacts ability to compete. Forcing the teams to add veteran talent would make them slightly better but it would not change their capacity to compete. There is also a good possibility one of those contracts they are forced to add turns into a bad contract which later detracts from their ability to put together a contender coming out of a rebuild.
  11. That's a pertinent question. However, I have always framed this discussion in the context of playoff teams simply because that's the first goal. Of course sustained success is ambiguous and basically impossible if the standard for sustained is relative to the Yankees and Dodgers. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons since 2000. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. Does sustained be consecutive seasons or relative success over several years. I don't know about you but semantics aside I would opt for the 3 teams that produced (27) 90 win seasons over the (6) that produced 8.
  12. How do you feel about the proposed increase in the competitive balance tax? The current demand is to raise the CBT by $35M. This would not impact many teams as only a handful have been willing to spend to that level currently. However, it does increase the already high level or competitive disparity between top and bottom revenue teams. As a fan of a mid-market team, how much should we be willing to increase the Yankees / Red Sox competitive advantage? This increase basically allows them to sign another elite free agent or extend another elite player or sign a couple Michael Taylors without consequence. I don’t know about you but I think parity needs to increased not expanded. Should we support the league’s version that would raise the CBT slightly and imposed draft penalties for exceeding the limit for a prolonged period or should be just accept increasing competitive disparity for the top handful of teams so that we can start the season on time?
  13. Oh. I get it. You have figured out something no team / no general manger / no front office in the history of baseball has ever been able to figure out. Do you realize how absurd this statement is? No below average revenue team has produced what you feel is sufficient to call sustained success so we should ignore the how the most successful teams are built. If you had identified a more efficient / effective approach like Tampa has utilized this could potentially make sense. However, your plan is to utilize the most inefficient practice of all for player acquisition. The only teams that could claim sustained success are the Yankees and Dodgers who operate in an entirely different realm given their massive revenue advantage. Even their history has clearly illustrated the value of building from within. Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons. The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively. I don't know about you but I would seek to learn something from how Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa built their teams. Players don't hit 600 and teams can't win 90 every season. Expecting perfection or something close is not even remotely reasonable in this scenario. Outperforming all mid and small market teams is a reasonable goal. The acquisition practices that have led to success are an excellent indicator of best practice. I made it even more direct by comparing the acquistion practices that produced playoff teams. What makes sense is to study what practices have been utilized by the most successful teams. You are suggesting we ignore the facts because they don't support your position.
  14. For starters, what happened 2 or 3 or 4 years ago is a different topic. I have no problem with what they did for the 2019 and 2020 seasons. Anyone and I mean anyone could trade away the future for the present. Even the top revenue teams have become very reluctant to trade their top talent. The Dodgers would not be where they are today if they would have traded away any number of players 3-6 years ago to "go for it". Sustaining success is much harder. Most fans put far more weight on the immediate and that's the reason fans hate management. I have gone to a fair amount of effort to summarize how the top WAR players were acquired for playoff teams. I broke them down to drafted / Traded for as prospects or unestablished MLB players / Traded for as established MLB players and free agents. I have posted those summaries here. I have also posted summaries of several teams. In other words, I have posted a great deal of evidence. That information is largely ignored. Of course, I would not expect evidence to sway fanaticism. That would be naive on my part. I have asked many times for people to give even a single example of below average revenue teams that sustained any success (reached the playoffs) that produced a significant portion of their WAR via free agency or specifically established / expensive free agents. Modest or low priced free agents that over achieved have actually played a role. History shows that drafting and development + trading for prospects is by far the most influential form of acquisition for teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Over performing free agents next. High price free agents and high profile trades have a very modest impact so there are many examples if you are willing to look without bias. I am not going to post the information again. It would just be ignored again. I will however mention one more time that for all the bitching about the going for it approach, not a single person has ever been willing to challenge the assertions I have made about talent acquisition with examples. There has to be a couple that at least have some validity. If the methods so often insisted upon here were viable there would be all kinds of examples and posters VERY eager to prove I am full of $h!( and the front office is incompetent. Instead, everyone just refuses to actually take a look at how playoff teams have been constructed in a methodical way. In other words, take the top players in terms of WAR and list how they were acquired.
  15. Absolutely not. This singular focus would make for prolonged mediocrity. That's why Chicago traded away Sale and Eaton. It's why Oakland traded away Samardzija for Semien and Bassit. It's why Seattle traded away Cano / Diaz and on and on. Contending shouldn't even be a consideration for really bad teams. Of course, the Twins have a reasonably good offense and that makes this question debatable. If you want a good indication of what strategy they should be following wouldn't it make sense to study how contenders outside the top 10 in revenue have been built. Shouldn't we want the FO to follow strategies that have been proven effective. The Twins have enough revenue to extend players like they have with Buxton, Polanco, and Kepler. They can also fill a hole or two but trying to rebuild to the extent needed here through Free agency is a very low probability play. Can you give an examples of contenders among teams with similar or less revenue over the past couple decades. Is this how Cleveland or Oakland or Tampa or Pittsburgh or Kansas City or Milwaukee built playoff teams?
  16. I was curious how the IP would work out with less tradition roles. Using these assumptions for the roster spot not necessarily a given pitcher. 3 tradition SPs averaging 4.33 IP and 4 what I will call Hybrid pitchers averaging 3IP plus 3 Two Inning RPs and 3 One IP RPs The innings total looks like this …. AVE AVE # OF TOTAL # IP REST Games IP IP 3 Traditional Starters 4.66 5.6 33 153.95 461.84 4 Hybrid 3.33 4.33 43 142.27 569.10 3 2 IP Specialist 1.66 2.66 70 115.45 346.35 3 1 IP Specialist 0.9 2.2 84 75.68 227.05 13 1604.34
  17. They are going to add a SS so that gets you to 22 and 17? They have Kepler and Celestino to cover center id needed. They have Celestino / Cave / Larnach and Gordon for corner ofers. 3 deep at catcher. Several options for 1st 2nd and 3rd. SS is the one lean position. Obviously, they could use Gordon as a back-up. I guess if they lose whoever the sign and Gordon they would have to go to Palacios or use Polanco at SS.
  18. It's hard to believe they added velocity just like that. Could be a big jump in hos ceiling, especially given his best pitch is a change-up. He would have Johan like velocity difference between the two. I am going to be watch a lot of Milb games this year.
  19. It has happened often to varying degrees. Charlie Morton signed with the Rays and then Atlanta to be near home. Madison Bumgarner wanted to have a horse ranch and so on. It was reported that Bumgarner had higher offers and I would guess Morton could have dome better elsewhere too. Maybe they just knew his preference was not Minnesota and determined he was unlikely to sign an extension. For all we know, they approached him with an extension before trading him.
  20. They were so desperate that they won 101 games that year. Placing this much weight on the immediate term is a sure fire way to insure failure in the long-term. The net gain of having Pressly in 2019 most likely would have been they win 102 or103 instead 101. His presence would have meant nothing in the post season given how that turned out. Trading 4 years of Alcala and 6 of Celestino for an extra game or two in 2019 would be horrendous asset management.
  21. The first part is obvious. You can't claim to want better competitive balance when you ask for a big increase in the CBT and less revenue sharing. It's insulting they try to tell us they are concerned about competitive integrity. If the owners wanted to "pay the least amount they can", what would stop them from spending less under the old agreement or the terms being demanded by players?
  22. Obviously, they don’t all work out. The question is not do they all work out. The question is would insisting these teams keep these players and maintain a higher payroll profile help or hinder them in building a contender? These teams are mediocre with no chance of ever contending unless they get an influx of talent and rebuild. The Marlins were simply poorly run. Let’s not forget they traded Realmuto for Sixto Sanchez and Intl bonus money. I guess the jury is out but the point is that was a better plan than keeping Realmuto and still being under 500. Oakland got Semien and Bassit for Samardzija. Mariners got Kelenic in the Cano / Diaz trade. Cleveland Traded Cliff Lee for Carlos Carrasco Cleveland also got Kluber for Westbrook. They also got Bauer for Sipp. Sipp was not great but he was a 4yr establish player. Atlanta got Max Fried for Justin Upton. They are not stars but contributors. Of course, they got Ynoa from us for Garcia. Let’s not forget the Padres got Tatis for Sheilds. Would teams in the Padres position be better of if the Padres had kept Shields to meet a payroll floor? Would their fans be better off. What did fans here want when the Twins season was lost? Most of us wanted players that could be part of the solution to get playing time so why do we want to force a different approach? There are many others examples throughout history. It’s clear moving veterans has helped teams rebuild. Their alternative was most likely to remain a poor team. So, would we really be improving the level of competition by enforcing a floor? Honest question because it appears to me a salary floor would make really bad teams a little less terrible but hinder them in building an actual contender.
×
×
  • Create New...