Major League Ready

You have manipulated what I said to fit your needs. I included the range of anyone to "exceptionally skilled" in other areas not directly providing the skillset to run a baseball team. You are high on the list of people who think they are more skilled than this front office but I am sure you have a lengthy list of credentials that make that a reasonable presumption.

or they could be saying that they learned something from Milwaukee, Miami, Cleveland, Tampa, and Oakland. Maybe they are thinking the only way they can truly contend is to build from within.

It was definitely a mistake to share actual experiences pertaining to why the front office does the things they do. Of course, I too dislike some of their transactions. I am not adequately informed in terms of their operations to have an informed opinion where that’s concerned but I probably would not agree with some of their operating practices either. What an ego to believe an extensive business education and actual profit and loss experience responsibility for a 9 figure businesses would provide a little perspective. I realize now that it makes far more sense that the angst with the Twins or sports team in general is a result of the average person or even people exceptionally skilled in other disciplines being more skilled and having a superior perspective to running a team than the people who worked their way up to these jobs. Who wants to hear that the experience working their way up might provide insight the average guy does not possess when you want to rail about their incompetence. Of course, there are no out of check egos involved in believing one has a superior understanding of how to run the team no matter how inexperience one might be in actually running an organization because it’s a simple job. Why they pay those guys multi-million dollar salaries is a complete mystery.

I have NEVER suggested they are a low revenue team. As a a matter of fact I have been careful to point out they are below average and also pointed out they could follow some of the practices of the Rays but use their incremental revenue to do some things the Rays can't. You won't find the A's or the Pirates or other similar teams signing Josh Donaldson. In other words, I agree they can definitely do more than the lowest revenue teams but it makes no sense to believe there is a problem if they don't sign guys at the very top of the market., especially when they are already carrying Donaldson's salary. The reasonable comparison would be to look at teams of similar revenue. I included any teams with below average revenue just to provide the opportunity for anyone to use any of these team's signings as an example. You might notice that whenever I ask for examples, I get tangential responses, never an acknowledgment of these facts or any sort of a response with actual examples. People prefer to ignore the facts and believe what they want to believe in when presented with hard fact.

Same is true for constant insistence of sports fans everywhere that management is incompetent. The reason for this perennial assumption that teams are being managed so poorly could not possibly be that it's the sports fan that does not understand. They are all experienced senior level management running 9 figure businesses.

It's am afraid it's necessary to point out the actual issue is revenue disparity given the fact that there are many people here who can't seem to grasp the concept you can't spend money you don't have.

Apparently you are more skilled than Billy Beane.

This is not germane to the point I was making. I responded to a poster who said the Twins are not a serious MLB team because they did not sign Berrios or give him a 7 year deal or however you want to interpret it. I pointed out that there is literally one example of a below revenue team making such a signing. Point being that it's not something low revenue teams do. People constantly bitch about the Twins not doing things that none of the low revenue teams do. It's an ignorant bitch. It would be great if people had enough common sense to ask themselves if this is a Twins thing or a product of being a below revenue team. The argument they should follow bad practices because they have not been good at the practices essential to lower revenue teams is so ill-conceived it boggles my mind. Wouldn't the best course of action be to improve those practices. For example, get a new PBO and GM. Replace the people managing identification and development as well as improving analytics. I don't know yet if they have succeeded at these tasks. However, I am absolutely certain pursuing inferior practices because we have not excelled at best practices in the past would be the height of incompetence.

How many other teams with below average revenue signed SPs to 7 year deals in the past 25 years? The answer is 1. Colorado signed Dan Hampton which was a horrific signing. Is Colorado the only serious MLB team among those teams with below average revenue? Tampa traded Snell last year. Are they not interested in winning? Oakland is looking to trade their established SPs. Does this indicate they are not a serious MLB team. Was Billy Beane demonstrating he was not interested in winning when he traded Jeff Samardzija for Bassitt and Semien?

Sorry to be harsh. I had to evaluate hundreds of people over my career at various levels ogf management and also as a consultant. Passing judgement on people is a difficult role / responsibility and should not be done without being fully informed. The kind of observations you are using are not even remotely adequate to form an educated opinion much less pass convey that opinion publicly. You are also assuming he is afraid to make a big trade when it is quite possible a big trade is not the best strategy. How many below average revenue teams have made a trade in the past 10 years for the type of established elite players called for by fans. They are relatively rare. Look at playoff teams with below average revenue and you will find the number of players acquired as prospects outnumber established players acquired for prospects by a wide margin. Tampa has thrived in part because they understand asset management and 5 or 6 years of control has more value than 2 years of control. Fans love trades for established players because they are impatient but there is a premium to be paid for established players that does not favor small market teams. Trades might be the best strategy when you have San Diego's incredibly deep farm system and/or you have all the other pieces. Does it make sense to make a big trade with all of the holes this team has presently. It might if they could convince a couple top FA SPs and a SS to come here. What you assume is fear is simply good judgement, IMO.

So how do you reduce the years of control significantly without absolutely destroying the ability of small market teams to compete which in turn will hurt the game's popularity and reduce the overall revenue. Therefore, reducing the amount of revenue available to pay players. The average fans view of these dynamics does not account for the owners desire to what's best for the game. The players are much more focused on getting theirs right now.

Do you think there is even a remote chance the Players Union would ever allow pay based on performance? They are all about guaranteed pay.

The fan base does not have his job because they are not the best judge of what should be done. They don't pay people millions to do this job because anyone can do it. The fact you would make this statement about someone without ever so much as having a conversation with him is good evidence you don't have the skill set to judge him.

The other teams don't recognize the same benefits from signing a top pitcher? Plus, if he brought in 5,000 extra fans who all spent $100 that would not cover half his salary. That's assuming he had the same impact in road games.

The CBA does not allow these types of bonuses. The union only accepts bonuses based on appearances / ABs. They won't accept bonuses based on a high level of performance.

You have made some assumptions that make absolutely no sense. They would not have an entire staff built this way. That would never happen. See Nine of Twelve's comments. Why would they only pitch a guy 3 innings if he can give you 6 or 7. This is simply the Twins adjusting to the modern game on the front side of the adoption curve instead of the back like they did with analytics. Why do you assume it's only SPs having their numbers of innings pushed back. Why couldn't it be relievers be pushed to a Josh Hader role or even beyond? They would push up their innings and make themselves more valuable. It's could also help prospects transition the the big leagues. Finally, have you paid any attention to the average length of starts? Pitchers that go 6-8 innings on a regular basis are virtually extinct. We want guys who throwing upper 90s and strike out a lot of batters. Those attributes don't generally promote pitching a lot of innings.

Not sure I am following the QO part of this. If he performs to a level that a QO would keep him here the trade will have been an epic failure. Am I missing something?

The owners are going to negotiate what's best for the league. That's generally speaking what's best for the fans. The owners have a lot riding on the continued success of the league. The players are going to attempt to maximize their income right now. I doubt any of them have given much thought to what's best for the future of the sport. Business owners care about the health of their business and their industry for a number of obvious reasons. No doubt those reasons equate to profitability. To say they are greedy and don't care is a contradiction. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the owners will be far more focused than the union where the fans and the good of the game are concerned.

This would absolutely crush the lower revenue teams. The bottom teams would be so bad that they would generate very little revenue. It would kill the game long-term. Never / ever going to happen. I would hope that even the players union would understand this would lead to considerable lost revenue across the league. Why do we care what players want. The top players make 500X (annually) the amount earned by the baseball fans funding their salaries. If they are not getting paid well enough they can find a different job like the rest of us.

If the average household income would have kept pace with baseball salaries over the past 50 years the average household income would be approximately $3.2M. No group of humans on the planet has enjoyed such a sustain pay increase over so many years in the history of the planet. The total compensation paid is phenomenal. Should it be allocated differently? IDK that's a different question. Why do we care who gets what? Both groups are the extremely fortunate. What I want is to not have an interruption to baseball. I also want as much parity as possible and I want my team to have a chance. Teams like the Twins or even lower revenue teams are at an severe disadvantage now. Reduce the period of control and that problem gets worse. I do think Seth's idea of 6 years or 29 1/2 has merit but people cheering for reduced control are cheering for even greater disparity for our team and across the league.

Would love to see examples of average revenue teams that have pulled off a similar plan. Would also see what that plan actually looks like in terms of payroll and what you would have to trade away to acquire this much talent in one off-season. If this is feasible, shouldn't the Reds, Cardinals, Mariners, Phillies, Mets, Angels, Tigers, and Guardians also make similar transformations. What about the Dodgers and Astros? They both have almost $90M coming off the books. The Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays are all coming off 90+ win seasons. Shouldn't they be adding pieces? This does not leave too many teams to trade with and the teams that are at the very bottom are not exactly load with talent.

I have compiled the WAR for all of the free agents pitchers who got 4 years or more and posted those results here. The very top guys (cole/scherzer types) have done pretty well. The rest have not been good in aggregate. I don't think that means we should not sign any of them. However, the conversation here generally makes it sound like they are the surefire way to success which they are not. I have been a proponent of a non-traditional pitching staff for the last few years. Not because I find it more entertaining, I don't think I will but it's an opportunity to find a competitive edge. I would be just fine with the Twins developing a model that gives us an edge. Others will follow just as they followed the Rays opener but I would welcome an advantage for a period of time.

There is a tendency to be a little too literal or extreme here. We don't need to exactly mirror them in order to implement SOME of their practices and philosophies. We have enough incremental revenue that we certainly could afford to extend players or sign free agents they would not. As a matter of fact, executing as well as they do would result in having productive low cost players which in turn would provide us payroll flexibility. We also don't have to have a whole staff of 3 inning guys. That would never happen. Why couldn't the formula not be 3 SPs who are expected to pitch 5+ and 6 guys in this other role. They might go 4 innings and they might go 2 innings but the goal is to get 9 innings or 8 in the case of a road loss. That leaves 4 traditional BP arms who could also go more than 1 inning given the BP gets the day off anytime those six guys cover 9 innings. There also does not need to be a rule that a pitcher in this new role could not go 5 or even six innings when they are on a roll. It's a great idea for this year to given we have a lot of prospects knocking at the door. I don't know if it's a great long-term strategy because we are far from a well thought through plan. I do know that it's not a good practice to dismiss strategies without understanding the options and the plan completely and then a reasonable validation effort.

We got SWR and Martin for a year and 2 months of Berrios who is not as good as Castillo so I would assume it will take a package offering more than SWR and Martin. I think they would ask for us to add someone along the lines of Miranda or Winder.

There is just not a need (yet) to cut too deep. I agree Astudillo, Cave, and Barnes can go. I would probably hold onto Strotman because of his upside. The other two I think we have seen more than enough from are Smeltzer and Thorpe. Remove those 5 and you have 7 slots open, Add the 5 prospects you have listed and we are at 38.