Major League Ready

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.

We might be wrapped up in considering a bunch or different SPs but I doubt the FO is looking at more than a couple options which include Rodon / Bassit. We already have Gray / Mahle / Ryan / Ober / Maeda / Winder and possibly Duran. They have Henriguez and Sands for depth. Varland and SWR are also knocking at the door and hopefully Paddack is ready to go at by mid-season. Why would they want to clog the roster with another Bundy or Archer?

Is it an "unwillingness" to spend when another team has literally twice the revenue? If you don't have it, wouldn't that be an inability rather than an unwillingness. Are you unwilling to spend the money for a $5M home (assuming you don't live in one) or are you unable to buy a $5M home. I am surprised this type of statement is repeated so often when we know several other teams have far greater financial means which translate to an ABILITY.

So, what you are saying is the question is not will they but should they? Having collected the data on every 5 year or greater contract, it's easy to understand your point and I definitely agree in general. However, I would not say "never ever". It can make sense for a mid market team like the twins if they develop a roster full of productive players from within. They can then use that financial flexibility we hear mentioned to secure a top of the rotation free agent SP. Obviously, they still have to choose wisely (like Indiana Jones) because they fail more than they succeed. The right guy might not exist this year. I was hoping Musgrove would be available until I realized San Diego was his home market. I have that at $130M if they added Rodon while adding Hanigar, resigning Sanchez and keeping Urshela. Next year Urshela / Gray and Mahle roll off. That leaves us at about $100M with Rodon / Ryan / Ober and we would need to come up with 2 SPs between Varland / SWR / Paddack. Perhaps Henriguez or Sands step up or they could go get a Bundy type for the 5th spot. That leaves them some room to extend a couple guys and keep this going for several years. They would also have Kepler rolling off in 24 or perhaps he is traded this year. They are positioned well. Now, they need to execute some tweaks in the roster construction. This is a long way of saying you hit this one on the head. We should not just assume signing a big name free agent pitcher is the best way to build a winner. I remember some people being mad we did not get Bumgardner. It's too soon to tell just how good a decision it was to not give Berrios a 7 year deal but that decision and trade are looking very good at the moment.

Pretty much exactly what I have although I don't have Hand and I like that plan. We all know it will be really tough to land Rodon but can hope for it. Then, there is Kodai Senga. I knew little of him before Nick's article but the posts in that thread have me intrigued.

Actually, The "collection of trash" (not your quote) that replaced him have all outperformed him with the exception of Cave. Their OPS and wRC+ is as follows. Rosario has an OPS of 675 and a wRC+ of 82 since he left. All of these players outperformed Rosario for $8M less. I will take this collection of guys and the $8M toward an RP or Mitch Hannigar all day long. This coming from a guy who was once a big Rosario fan. Kyle Garlick – 728 103 Nick Gordon – 711 /101 (all positions) Trevor Larnach – 687 / 95 Brent Roker – 688 / 91 Rob Refsnyder – 663 / 88

I think people are conveniently forgetting that San Diego was bad for a very long time. They drafted well. Some of those players make up their core and then they used an incredibly deep farm system to trade for pieces they need. They also traded an established player for a prospect that turned out to be a superstar. They also acquired Grisham with just 182 ml ABs and Cronenworth was still a prospect. Profar was far from a splashy trade. He cost them almost nothing. Their success was far more influenced by drafting than it has been by spending. Although, part of their success was taking on Darvish's salary which lowered the cost in prospect capital. They managed to trade for pitching which is not easy. Let's also keep in mind they have not had a one 90 win season since the turn of the century. They won exactly 90 in 2010. They were also on a 90+ win pace during the Covid year. I think people are crafting a scenario with San Diego by only considering the elements that support their success is driven by spending.

Julien now has the highest OPS in the AFL by 100 points. Martin is 4th. Talk about a dream scenario. Keep it up guys!

The list should consist of Rodon and Bassitt. I would much rather invest the innings in developing SWR / Varland and perhaps Winder if Rodon or Bassitt can't be persuaded to play here. Not to mention, Maeda and eventually Paddack being as good or better as most of these options. There is more to be gained by investing in RPs even with the caveat that RPs are as unpredictable as it gets.

I find it very interesting that the vast majority of people here completely accept and support players doing whatever yields them the most dollars. The majority ask how dare a company want to make a profit. The greatest ignorance of this whole stance is that if the Twins operated at break-even it would yield about an additional 4 wins/year. Of course, if they operated at break-even the company would literally have no value if you understand how valuations work. For any team outside the top 10 or 12 in revenue it's all about drafting and development and trading for prospects. All the focus on spending in very misguided where winning is concerned. Want to be mad about something. Be made they drafted Cavaco instead of Corbin Carroll. Be mad they spent a bunch of prospect capital this year when they just did not have a contending team. The biggest fallacy of all is that we (twins fans) would be better off if all the owners spent every available dollar. That would actually increase the spending gap given the bigger markets recognize more net profit. Therefore, the spending be advocated here would actually exacerbate the disadvantage.