Major League Ready

The measure for me is how many make it as solid or better ML pitchers. How many make it this year will be an important measure but so will how many make it overall from our current system. Here is how I would measure success. I expect Ryan and Ober to be solid contributors. From the group of Balazovic / SWR / Duran / Canterino / Enlow / Winder I expect 3-4 to be solid contributors, The big question is can one of two can be a front of the rotation guy. From the group of Sands / Meyer / Raya / Gipson-Long / Valimont / Varland / Srotman / Hajjar, I expect 2-3 will make it as ML pitchers. If we establish 2 SP and 2 RPs in 2022 however those roles might be defined, I would consider that a success. Anything beyond that will be highly successful and encouraging for sustained success.

I agree with much of what you say but you only make note of their high salary year and fail to mention that their payroll was half of that when this run started. That's a bit biased but more importantly none of this answers the questions we have been debating here. How were these teams constructed. In other words, what role to free agency play. Were trades for established players as important as trades for prospects in building the team. How many of the core players were drafted. Of course, the other question is why didn't the fans support the more recent successful team. Did they have constant churn of their key players. Here is a summary of key players, how they were acquired and how long they stayed. What this summary shows, just like the Rays, trads for prospects is far and away more responsible for their success than trading for established players. Of these 19 players, 9 were drafted, 8, were acquired as prospects or ML players that were yet to produce 1 WAR. 1 player (Andrew Miller) was acquired as an established player. In other words, the entire team was built on prospects or players acquired as prospects and then one piece was acquired in trade. I was somewhat surprised that as many key players were retained as long as they were. So, why did this team have 1/2 the attendance of the late 90s team. It surely was not because they didn't keep key players. Player Franciso Lindor Drafted - Kept until they fell off and traded in the last year of control Jose Ramerez International draftee - Long-term Extension Jason Kipmis Drafted - 9 seasons Carlos Santana Acquired as a prospect - 10 Seasons Michael Brantley Traded for as a prospect - Parts of 10 seasons Yan Gomes Acquired after 1st season with negative WAR - 6 Seasons Roberto Perez Drafted - 8 seasons L. Chisenhaul Drafted - Played his entire career with Gaurdians Corey Kluber Acquired as a prospect - 8 seasons through age 34 Carlos Carrasco Traded Cliff Lee for him when he was a prospect - 11 seasons Trevor Bauer Acquired as a MLB player with negative WAR - 6 1/2 seasons Mike Clevinger Acquired as a prospect - 4 1/2 seasons with Indians Danny Salazar International free agent - 6 seasons Andrew Miller Acquired via trade - 3 seasons Shane Bieber Drafted - still with team Idians Cody Allen Drafted - 7 seasons Bryan Shaw Acquired in trade after 2 seasons with a total of .2 WAR - 5 seasons Josh Tomlin Drafted - 9 seasons with Gaurdains 9 -Drafted 8 -Acquired as prospects or not yet established ML players 1- Established ML player acquired in trade

It’s interesting to test these assertions / opinions regarding attendance against other successful small market teams. This is a link to Cleveland’s attendance history which includes win record and payroll. Cleveland Attendance / Payroll / Win Record In their run at Jacobs Field from 95-2001 their average attendance/game was 41,569 with an average payroll of $64,115,294. It started at $38M and ended at $93M. During their 5 year run at Progressive Field from 2016-2020, they averaged 22,547/game in attendance adjusted for Covid in 2020 by removing that year. Their average payroll was $121,112,584. These facts don't exactly validate some of the assertions here. During their run in the late 90s they let Albert Belle (7 WAR) go in free agency after the 96 season. Attendance actually went up slightly the next year. They traded Brian Giles after the 98 season. He was a 4 WAR player. The attendance per game changed by 14 people per game in 99. Giles produced 13 WAR the next two years. Attendance remained the same in 2000 even though they did not make the playoffs and it went down to slightly to 39,600 in 2001 which was the last year of their run. These fact don't support assertions made here either. IMO, the Rays attendance is bad because they completely ignored that the location they picked is absolutely horrible to get to that time of the day. It's not retail but location is still very important.

That would be very interesting in isolating drafting and development in terms of impact of acquisition methods. However, isn't the real question the role the various acquisition methods play in the building of successful teams. I would take it one step further and measure acquisition methods among the bottom 1/3, middle 1/3 and top 1/3 in terms of revenue. Isn't that the core of the debate that goes on here? Wouldn't that be the most telling in terms of the relative importance of the various methods of acquisition. I have done this for playoff teams and posted it here in the past. What you will find in Tampa Bays case is a highest percentage of their product players being acquired in trade as prospects or before they became established producers at the ML level. If you do this for all of the successful teams with below average revenue you will find it very telling. A lot of people prefer to ignore how successful teams or similar revenue have been formed because it most definitely does not support a quick fix through trade or free agency.

By that logic, if the Dodgers kept doing exactly what they are doing but the fans quit coming out, they would be unsuccessful. If Twins fans came out no matter what and had a good time last year would have been a success. From a pure business point of view, I would have to agree but we can't have it both ways. Is winning the measure of success or attendance or Profitability or is this going to be another way we spending as the ultimate goal of a team?

Montas and Berrios had exactly the same WAR last year. We got SWR and Martin for a year and 2 months of Berrios but the exact same players for 2 full years of Montas would be a VAST overpay?

So, you are saying this "awful" team is "guaranteed" to be a contender? Your words, not mine. What exactly are the odds of them gaining this many wins through free agency? They would need to pick up at least 20 wins, probably more, based on your portrayal of the situation. There is absolutely no assumption the talent will be waiting. The critical thinking is that future availability or potential lack thereof does not validate a bad decision today. In order to "waste" a year" they would have to be legit contenders. Making them out to be horrible without these additions but contenders with them is not exactly rational.

We found something we agree on. There is absolutely no doubt that investing a year in development provides no guarantees for the future unlike free agents who always perform. If only we had signed Bumgarner. If only we had traded for Sale and Darvish. So, why do teams so commonly invest in development or rebuilding? Why did the Mariners rebuild a winning team and why did the White Sox trade away Chris Sale and Adam Eaton. Why not build arounf them? Why did the Red Sox trade away Mookie Betts and on and on. Because it provided the best chance to be good in the future. There are no guarantees ever, just odds of success. You are refusing to look beyond next year but I would be happy to consider all of the examples of mid market teams that have acquired their top 3 positions in their rotation in one off-season by the means you suggest they employ.

You wouldn't think I would have needed to make the point at all. However, you (and others) have openly stated on more than one occasion that you don't care about wins per dollar spent. It's often even mocked here. I share your surprise that anyone needs to point out the inevitable need for teams with less revenue to be more productive per dollar spent but here we are. I am not missing your point. Your bias is preventing you from seeing anything but the simplistic notion they could spend more. They are so effective they always have a better solution than spending on a free agent is the point. To criticize them for being this effective is mind boggling. BTW ... their practices have allowed them to sign a superstar this year to a very long-term deal in a market where retaining top players is extremely difficult.

It’s pretty simple math. A team at or near the bottom in terms of revenue that produces a number of win at or near the top of the league is going to “win the Least Amount Of Money Spent Per Win”. In order to win the most games (or close) with the least revenue (payroll) you have to produce the most wins per dollar spent. It’s an absolute requirement. Given this obstacle, they have developed practices that have enabled to achieve great success in spite of a huge revenue disadvantage. Criticizing them for developing these practices and getting the entire organization including the players to execute them is misguided at best. The Ray’s are an exceptionally run organization. The develop well and they often trade players with 1-2 years for prospects or players that have trade just broken into the league but not established themselves. They understand asset management and that there is a market deficiency. Teams will trade assets with more long-term value for immediate results. Look at their playoff rosters over the years and you will see these acquisitions have played a significant role in building their rosters. The A’s understand this as well which is why some of their short-term assets are being offered in trade. The most core principal of success for any below average revenue team is production per dollar dollar spent. It's really not debatable that a team with half the revenue (payroll) of another team has to produce twice as many wins per dollar spent. That inevitable fact or lack of understanding that fact is why many fans are at odds with how front offices for below ave Revenue teams manage assets.

In the last two full seasons (2018 & 2019) the Brewers had $60M and $30M more in revenue. I would expect their payroll to be higher. The Reds got nothing done and are dismantling now but we should hold them in higher regard because they spent more? The Rays are one of the very lowest teams in all of baseball yet they are fielding a contender. They have 9 ninety win seasons in the past 20 years while the Padres and Rockies who have close to average revenue have 1 each. They have absolutely proven their practices put a superior product on the field. Are we measuring success by payroll or wins on the field?

I did corporate reorgs for 15 years. "Reports" and what people think are rarely all that accurate. That said, they may very well have been willing to trade him. I just don't believe they changed their mind because of fan pressure or public opinion. I think as time went on Buxton moved some and they moved some and they found a deal that both sides could live with. Fans often want something that is a very bad plan. People in that sort of leadership position don't last long bending to popular opinion. Of course, there is always an element of truth in these stories. I would hope they were talking to other clubs given they didn't know if they could get him signed. I would hope they asked for Bryson Stott and I am sure there was a possibility they would have traded Buxton if the return made sense. The fact that they ended up signing him does not mean they changed their mind. They got a deal done they could live with. That's more likely the influence as opposed to fan pressure.

I think by the end of 2022 we will finally be able to grade that trade. I am betting Alcala will be a dominant RP this year we saw at the end of 2021 and we have him for 4 more years. I think we see quite a bit of Celestino too.

I agreed with you entire post Doc but wanted to highlight this portion. I don't believe for a second they changed their mind because of public pressure. They are not out polling the public. They understood a long time ago the fans loved Buxton and just like many of us here, Buxton was a priority for them. However, this was a unique situation with his injury history which made it difficult to come to an agreement both sides could live with. There was no need to rush the deal and in the end they got it done.

The Twins have enough incremental revenue in comparison to the Rays that they can keep a couple of top players. The cant keep them all like the Dodgers but we can keep the most critical players. The Dodgers went from focusing on established talent (trades for established players & free agents) to a Rays type model and they have sustained excellence. Of course, the difference is they can pretty much keep all of their top players. They have built a powerhouse by keeping their best prospects. They have been very careful with long-term free agent acquisitions. It's the Rays model for a team with over double the revenue. We don't have to churn players the way the Rays do. What we need to do is exercise patients like the Rays. That means not trading good prospects for 1-2 year assets. It means not signing free agent SPs when you have several pitching prospects ready for their shot. For the Rays, it means never signing free agent pitchers to 5+ year deals because the rate of failure is simply to high. Our incremental revenue makes it more viable to sign a front of the rotation guy to a long-term contract if they build the rest of the staff from within.

I put this together a couple years ago and updated it recently. These are below average revenue teams win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for the last 20 years. Oakland .535 10 Indians .516 9 Rays .507 9 Twins .502 6 Mariners .480 4 Dbacks .490 4 Brewers .488 4 Reds .481 3 Orioles .459 2 Pirates .452 2 Marlins .480 1 Padres .476 1 Rockies .489 1 Royals .442 1

I just listened to an interview with someone from the cardinals. They have 400 employees now up 100 in the past 5 years. These positions are subject matter experts. Health and physical fitness experts. More hitting and fielding coaches. More analysists, etc. Just health insurance for a full-time employee is close to $20K. They are certainly not $10.hr interns. Obviously, maintaining Target field and travel for a MLB team is not cheap. Based purely on a rough guess from Forbes estimates, the average team probably spends in the neighborhood of $100M on "operations"

Sano / Polanco / Garver / Arraez / Buxton / Kepler so six of the top position players are still there plus they added Donaldson and Kirilloff. Their two top RPs ( Rodgers / Duffey) are still there. Alcala was also here but looking much better than he did when he first came up.

According to Fangraphs their TV revenue is $5M more than the Twins. Is that significant? MLB TV Contracts You are missing a few things when making such a simple comparison. They still have all of the staff and other operating expenses of the other teams. I am sure they don't spend the same amount as the Yankees on staff and expense but it's probably close to as much as they spend on players. You are also forgetting bonus money for drafted players both international and domestic. Then, there are Payroll taxes and other benefits. Spotrac estimates benefits at $16M. Rays Payroll

If shine means be one of the dominant pitchers in the league .... none. Berrios was bad his first year. The benchmark I am looking for will be pitchers that prove with little doubt they have what it takes to pitch at the top level and are here to stay. Another way of looking at might be they prove they are part of the solution. 2-3 guys who pass that measure as SPs would be great. I think we are also going to see a couple new BP guys emerge and this will be the year Alcala becomes the dominant RP we have been hoping he would become.

Execute the same strategies but spend and 50-70M/year more than the Rays on free agents or keeping our best players sounds good to me.

IDK about this year but beyond 2022 I suspect at least a couple of our SP prospects are going to have a significant role in the BP. Who knows, Jax might be good in the BP. I think Valimont is best suited to be a RP. I am hoping Strotman finds the command necessary to be a SP but he might be a RP. The big one is obviously Duran. I sure hope he is a front of the rotation SP but if not he might be a shut down RP. I also think we are going to see fewer SP and RPs in traditional roles. There are going to be more 2, 3, and 4 inning pitchers.

I have to admit I have not studies the shorter deals. With just a little luck this current crop should produce a bunch of the guys we could get on a 3 year deal. In spite of being the guy pointing out the poor track record of 5+,year deals, I am hoping all of these prospects position us to sign the next Zack Wheeler. I guess it would be even better if a couple top of the rotation guys appear as they did in Cleveland. In that case, they can buy a SS or whatever pieces we still need. You can't achieve the best case scenario if you don't proceed in a manner that promotes it.

We don’t know. We could have 5 pitching prospects burst on to the seen next year or none. Miranda might be better than Donaldson next year or flop completely. Martin / Lewis might be ROY candidates or never make it to the ML level. That’s a very different premise. That vulnerability is always present when you are in a development stage regardless of the intended timeframe is 1 year or 5. However, it is very reasonable to expect or plan for this to occur over the next year. There are so many that the influx will still be going on into 2023 and beyond. Perhaps more to the point, this conversation started with the actions or more specifically intent. If their intent was a 4 or 5 year rebuild, they would probably not have signed Buxton. They would have traded Donaldson at the deadline or this off-season for any salary relief they could have obtained. Rodgers / Duffey / Thielbar / Kepler / Arreaz / Garver / Sano and Polanco would all be traded for prospects. It’s just not reasonable to suggest this is a 5 year plan based on the estimated ETA of the prospects alone. They also have not moved on from numerous veterans. This is not at all consistent with a long-term rebuild strategy. I will join you calling this a rebuild if they come back after the lockout and trade the players listed above. Until then their actions and the timing of prospects are not even remotely indicative of a long-term rebuild.

I agree in any other year. Not that I would object to signing the right guy to a 3 year deal this year but that's not going to make us contenders. We can pretend to contend or we can invest a season in developing the assets we make us contenders for severl years. To that end, I have stated on several occasions that free agents can and should be used strategically. However, that’s not the approach often advocated for here. For example, it’s often suggested / insisted that we should sign them whenever we can get them. The idea of timing these acquisitions when we have a good chance of contending has induced some rather crass responses. For those of us who bother to actually look at the history of these contracts beyond year 1 and 2 it’s brutally obvious these acquisitions need to be timed. If not, you get a difference maker when the difference does not matter and nothing from a large investment when it could matter. Call it opportunity cost if you like. Perhaps more to the point this year is that trying to build three-fifths of a rotation through agency is destined for failure. Again, history is quite clear if we are willing to be objective and look at how playoff teams acquire pitching. There is also often an absolute refusal to accept we have far less financial resource. It’s an absolute certainty we have to get more productivity per dollar spent. While it’s undeniable, this is another concept that often draws sarcastic ridicule. Free agents are an important building block. However, they have to be timed and we have to be more productive per dollar spent than the high revenue markets. I am not in the least bit against free agency. However, the premise of building the entire front end of a rotation or the general attitude of pay whatever it takes are not good practice and we should not be hoping they employ desperate measures through bad practice. My hope is that they establish a homegrown rotation and use the financial flexibility to sign a top of the rotation guy and or fill any remaining holes.