Major League Ready

You quote me asking for examples and then come back with the same rhetoric. If you have point, there would be plenty of examples. The capacity to just ignore anything that seriously challenges a position goes with fanaticism. I get this but when the question is asked repeatedly you would think a few people would stop to ask why other teams in similar positions don't sign these elite players. What do you know that all of the GMs of similar teams don't know.

You ignored how all of the winners were built. This particular failure you are focused on is absolutely irrelevant unless you are trying to figure out how to not get to the WS for 30 years. I am sure you think there is great wisdom in your position but you are demonstrating why some fans (of all organizations) are dismayed by FO decisions. You think not getting to the WS for 30 years is relevant to strategic decisions.

Show me an example of a team that went to the world series while paying 25% to one player which is what Correa at $35M of a $140M budget. You also refuse to acknowledge that Harper / Betts / Freeman / Goldsmidt / Arenado and Springer all play for teams that could pay 2 players Correa's salary and have the Twins budget left over. You also apparently don't understand that the lower revenue necessitates higher productivity per dollar spent. This is not a theory. It's a mathematical certainty. In other words, it's not a quantity of quality thing. Forget about what I think. Do you know something all the other GMs of average revenue (or below) teams don't know because they don't sign these players. You are able to find plenty of meaningless comparisons like teams with significant incremental revenue. No kidding a team with an extra 75 or 150M can sign high AAV free agents that the twins don't sign. Yet, somehow the fact these players are not signed by below average revenue teams escapes you.

No doubt they have the capacity. The question is the relative effectiveness of spending such a high percentage on one player? I am sure you have seen/heard or read this discussion in various form of media. The common wisdom is that it is not. Do you think Houston is poorly run? They could pay Correa twice with their incremental revenue and they let him go?

I knew you would not actually address the issue. If the Twins were the only below average revenue team in MLB you would have a point. Obviously, the point is how teams have been successful NOT how they have failed. The facts are very clear that successful average revenue teams have been a product of drafting players and trading for prospects. The reality is obvious if one is in the least bit willing to educate themselves on past winners. Your refusal to address my position with facts would be understandable if they were not so easy to validate. You damn well know you are ignoring the facts and if you could disprove my point you would have done so. Instead your response is a smart ass answer. We can all ignore facts when they absolutely obliviate our positions if we are willing to remain uniformed.

You are ignoring history which very clearly illustrates the stars aligning in our farm system is by far the most important element to any average or below average revenue team building a dominant team. I am including trading established players for prospects or players that have minimal major league experience in "the starts aligning" in our farm system as trading for prospects has been far more impactful than free agents or trading for established players among these teams. This is how average and below average revenue teams have been successful. Believe what you want to believe but you are ignoring the facts. We had Correa and we were under 500. Texas signed Seager and Semien and they were under 500. LA has Ohtani and Traut and they are under 500. They won 68 and 73 games respectively. What matters and what we should be concerned about are decisions like drafting Cavaco instead of Corbin or Stott. Don't agree. Great but show examples of winning teams in these markets that back-up your opinion.

Yes, their roster situations were better but that's not the primary difference between the teams that signed these players. With the exception of Machado, these teams all have significantly more revenue. The fact that these teams could all sign at least two of these contracts and still have the Twins budget left over is a far more significant difference. Let's also recognize that SanDiego has one 90 win season since the turn of the century and that was exactly 90 in 2010. Not exactly a franchise that has such great success that we should follow their practices.

That makes a lot of sense. They need to come up with two SPs to replace Mahle / Gray between Varland / SWR / Winder / Paddack and perhaps Sands or Dobnak could surprise us. If they have that depth, they can easily afford to go out and get a true front of the rotation guy in free agency that is at least as good as Gray and Younger.

I think you make a very good point here in terms of needing to shake things up a bit. What makes that really tough is we have so many unknowns with great upside that it may require some patience. One the position players side ... Will Lewis make it back mid-year. Will Kirilloff's wrist be OK? Can Miranda play an adequate 3B. Larnach looked great at times. Will he adapt to this level? Is Wallner the answer? Are Julien and Martin the next Miranda type breakout? That's a lot of unresolved questions. However, those guys getting a chance and working out is a far more effective way to build a winner. On the pitching side, we are going to lose two top of the rotation guys next year. I saw a big difference with Ober's new slider and Ryan had a good year but we don't want to be back to 2020/21 using retreads. Winder is a question mark. Will Paddack be back sometime next year. What are we going to get the all-start Lopez was with Baltimore or the mediocre guy we got after the trade deadline. Are Varland and SWR the answer. They need to get in to the mix this year. Hopefully, that could be part of shaking things up that could be done on the fly. The biggest question ... Should we put Duran in the rotation. Now is the time if they are going to give it a shot. Figure out if he takes one of those pitching vacancies next year. If it does not pan out they could put him back in the pen and work on transitioning Varland and SWR later this year. My shake-up would be to try Duran in the rotation, and I would trade one of Arraez or Polanco if a good return could be had. I say this knowing major established leaguers don't often get traded for other established major leaguers. Tampa has done great trading those types of players for MLB ready or near ready talent. One of Polanco / Arraez is your 2B and Gordon / Martin or Julien are the back-ups. I also trade Kepler and bring in Hannigar and another back of the BP arm.

I have looked at Forbes profit estimates many times over the years in an attempt to determine the operating costs for the twins and similar teams. (defined as non-player costs) The Twins Operating costs looks to be a little over $100M in recent years. All of the teams operating costs have increased with many subject matter experts (ie analytics) The cardinals have added 100 people according to one report. A $160M Payroll would cost around $180M after benefits. Therefore, break-even around $290M looks about right with a $160M payroll and they are not going to run the team at break-even. If they were really on the brink, it might happen but they have not been in a position that one more player would put them over the top in a long time.

I am really surprised so few people examine the side of this you have brought up. Obviously, paying 25% of the budget to one player makes it very difficult to payout for other players. That's why reams simply don't do it. Somehow it gets ignored that the twins have below average revenue. Take a look at any team with average or below average revenue. How are they constructed. The successful teams draft well and trading established players for prosects is as big as drafting them. They hold on to their prospects. You will find very few established players acquired for prospects. Below average revenue teams also very rarely spend over league average so hoping ownership is going to take it out of their pockets is not a wish likely to be granted. Detroit had a couple years. I am interested to see 2022 revenues and see where SanDiego is in terms of revenue because they are spending over average. Bottom line is building a winner through big dollar free agents is a losing strategy for an average revenue team. We didn't break 500 with him. Trout / Ohtani didn't make the Angels a winner and spending $500M on Seager / Semien didn't make Texas a winner. I will take Lewis or Lee at SS and $35M to spend on a top of the rotation starter over Correa. Of course, these players could play other positions. How much do we gain with Lewis or Lee at 3B over Miranda? That's why Houston did not sign correa. Pena is moist valuable at SS and so is Lewis or Lee.

The perfect off-season for me would be Rodon / Hanigar / Narvaez and about $15M spent on the BP. They won't compete with the high revenue teams for Correa. Houston has been one of the very best run teams in MLB and they let him go even though they have $60-80M more in revenue as compared to the twins. That should cause us to ask if spending $300M on Correa is a good idea. Never going to happen!

You think that most front office people chose this career path and are not fans of the game / don't care? Do you think Billy Beane does not care? You think that the people in these positions don't care about their customers (the fans). You apparently have not been around many people in leadership positions. The hundreds of leaders I have collaborated with over the years care a lot more than the average employee. It's their product and the people that get to these positions have pride in their work. They also understand the practical importance of keeping their job is dependent upon putting a good product on the field. Once again you have taken the most negative route possible. At least you are consistent.

For starters, how would you have any idea what Jim Pohlad knows about player negotiations. He certainly has far greater access to that information than any of us. I guess the whole management is stupid scenario makes people feel better about themselves but it's the cry of ignorance. Pohlad runs a large business and has much more experience negotiating contracts than 99% of the people here and to think he does not discuss the largest expenditures and those negotiations with the FO are fanatical rants and nothing more.

You are bending the point. I am pointing out that Jeter struggled with errors at one point and we know many stories of players who overcame being error prone and became great defenders. There is a tendency here to just ignore hard fact and numerous examples throughout history if it fits a negative narrative someone wants to promote. Perhaps the more salient point is that it's also not necessary for him to be a gold glove SS to be valuable. His skill set screams high on base super utility with the added bonus of being a pinch runner. A guy that can adequately back-up SS and CF with that skill set has great value but people want to be negative because he is not Carlos Correa at SS. I have no problem pointing out the negative as long as the positive is not ignored for the sake of simply being negative.

I agree these three will be interesting to watch but they are not going to be part of the rotation in 23. Varland and SWR are waaaay ahead of them and Prielipp is the closest behind them. There is also Canterino but I believe he ends up in the BP.

I know you know BA is a minor part of evaluating a player. OBP is more important than BA. stolen bases and base running matters. Defensive flexibility is an asset. Overall potential / ceiling matters. You know all of this but just can't pass up an opportunity to be negative. A couple months ago a lot of people were bitching about SWR too. lots of people looking for something to complain about.

That's very close to the rate Jeter had when he was in AAA. They should have gotten rid of the bum.

I doubt his trade value is that great given he has cooled off the last week although you have to believe his stock will be up if he closes as great as he started. My inclination is to hold on to him. He could be very valuable in a super utility role especially given Buxton is so injury prone. A guy that can back-up both middle IF spots and OF position, steal bases, and get on base is a guy I would like to see on the team.

If you are not suggesting he take money out of his own pocket, his wealth is absolutely meaningless in this discussion.

Your interpretation of what happened ignores the facts. Sanchez was better than Garver and he was available / more durable. Where Rosario is concerned he was literally one of the very worst corner outfielders in the entire league. The stats show very clearly that the various people that replaced Rosario were all better than him. Your version of the truth follows none of the facts.

Look at the impact of Cleveland trading Clevinger, Kluber, and Lindor. Do you see a reason now? Gimenez was a 6 WAR player. Clause is one of the best closers in the game. They also got Naylor / Straw and Quantril by trading away established players. I guess there is no reason if we only care about immediate impact but the mid-market and small-market teams having success are trading depth or guys they won't be able to resign. Cleveland managed to get guys that were close to contributing so the wait for production was not that long. The examples are numerous if you are willing to look.

They could play Arraez or Urshela at 2B. Then, IF Julien or Martin come up and kill it, they could put one of them at 2B. The Rays, A's and Cleveland have all clearly demonstrated the value in moving players like Polanco when they have depth. Just take a look at how Cleveland built their current team. Trading Kluber, Clevinger and Lindor is the reason they were good this year and have a great chance at sustained success.

I like it!

I have been saying the same thing because the current roster is full of low-cost players. The distinction is that we have not been in this position in as long as I can remember. We are positioned right now. This argument is made every year. The fact is that there are many teams with far more money. They can afford to pay twice as much per WAR. I use WAR to just to illustrate a measure. A small or mid market team spending that much is simply not an efficient use of payroll and very likely diminishes the chances of putting together and/or sustaining a dominant roster. That's why it's so rare for ANY team to spend in this way. The whole it's a Twin's cheapness thing ignores the fact that none of the other teams with equal or less revenue acquires the highest regarded FAs. Just to reiterate. I happen to agree with you that this is the time. However, that opinion is based on the fact that we have not been nearly so well positioned in terms of inexpensive talent in a long time. Most of the time, spending on a big name free agent pitcher would have a high probability of sinking the team for multiple years and history is quite clear on this point.