Major League Ready

I did not mention it because I don't know if this is true and neither do you. Once again you take a hard stance on a conclusion that is a product of a poorly conceived conclusion. Revenue grew more than wages the last couple of years. You don’t know what happened to profit. Do you suppose the Cardinals expenses went up going from 250 to 400 employees. Did they perhaps spend less on players because other costs absorbed the available budget dollars? I mention the Cardinals because of an article where this was mentioned. All of the teams are investing in non-player employees and programs. The problem here is that you don't understand an increase in profit does not insure an increase in profit. Regardless, I am not the least bit concerned how the new CBA impacts player compensation or team profits. The context of my comments was a product of poster’s feeling bad for the players. MLB players are the most fortunate group of individuals on the planets. The suggestion that it’s too onerous they be tied to one team for a long period of time is ridiculous. They are perfectly willing to be tied (many even prefer) to be tied to one team as long as their income is maximized. I also don’t measure the adequacy of compensation based on if it goes up every year. I don’t measure fairness based on if a company is profitable or not. My wife’s company is wildly profitable. She still gets paid based on what the market is willing to pay for her skillset. I ask questions like what would an alternative employer, in this case another league be willing to pay? The next highest paying league pays about 12% of MLB wages. This would lead me to conclude MLB players are paid very well. I ask would these players be happy with ¼ of the pay if that’s what revenue dictated. I have a hard time feeling like someone is not adequately compensated if they would be willing to do for ¼ of the wages. I don’t care what happened the last couple of years. I look at how a given group has done financially over a decade or two or even longer if good data is available. In other words, how has MLB player compensation grown compared to other professions? How high is their compensation compared to other professions? When I do this, I find that MLB compensation grown at the same rate as every other American over the past 50 years, MLB players would earn $198,000 on average. Did we consider them disadvantaged or taken advantage of in 1970? Since then, there income has grown 22X more than the rest of America. I find the concept that they are not paid enough to be absolutely absurd. I also don’t care about owner profits. That will be governed by market forces that they all signed up for. What I care about is all of the teams having a reasonable chance at success. I care about a good product on the field for as many teams as possible. Therefore, I am not worried about length of control. If players don’t find the $4.4M average salary adequate to relinquish the right to choose where they play their first 6 seasons, they have the right to pursue a different profession just like all of the rest of us.

Try looking at it from a slightly different angle. The 2018 team was not going to be a contender with or without any of the players that were traded. By trading them there is a very good chance a player or players received in the trade will provide a great fan experience for all of us for 6+ years. What if Duran turns into a front of the rotation starter? How much fun would that be for 6+ years? We can also look at it knowing these additions could elevate the team and contribute to a playoff run. Might all go to crap but acquiring these players has a much better chance of producing winning baseball than keeping those free agents on until the end of 2018.

The reason you and many other fans find themselves at odds with the front office is that your evaluation is from a micro perspective. The front office takes a more macro approach. Your approach is that they COULD spend $10M on Rosario if the elected to do so. Their approach is that $10M spent on Rooker or Cave + Simmons is a considerably better roster. Again, they are also looking past this year. How do you get better if you don’t develop players at the ML level? I also have a different fan perspective. Rosario was definitely one of my favorite Twins. Now, I don’t care to watch the high percentage of absolutely horrible ABs and mistakes in the field. I would rather watch one of the young guys develop into a player we can enjoy for several years. Bottom line is that fans with a macro view or a decidedly short-term focus are always going to be at odds with the front office. It’s not their fault for acting in the best interest of the team.

I did not quote Jeremy for a reason. My comments were in the grand scheme. Jeremy's ideas have merit but would take some time to consider which is why I made a general comment.

My only real concern with the new CBA is how it impacts parity and the relative ability of our team to compete. I don’t know why any fan is worried about how much the players get. Player compensation has increased and a mind boggling rate for 50+ years. The average TD household would be earning $3.17M annually if our wages had increased at the same rate. The average player makes almost 100 times the average adult in the US. Top players make more than 500 times the average. How much is enough? Why are we worried about player salaries while paying a hefty toll to attend games in a decent seat and $10 for a beer. Let’s worry about the sanctity of the game and further advantaging large markets is not consistent with protecting the game. I really doubt significantly increasing revenue sharing is going to fly. How do you ask the large market owners to agree to drastically reduce the value of their franchise and their income? The new owners would really be taking it in the shorts. The players would certainly not agree to anything that would have significant negative financial impact. Having said this … Increased revenue sharing and anything else that improves parity is what I most hope to see from the new CBA I also don’t see the financial upside for players most seem to think will result from less years of control. Teams are not going to spend more because players are free agents earlier. Their budgets are based on revenue. A spending floor would increase spending somewhat because those clubs have available funds. The downside would be that they would be forced to sign veterans instead of developing their prospects. I assume that’s not what we would want as fans if our team was rebuilding.

I think you give up your right to criticize the team’s effort to improve if you are unwilling to trade pending free agents at the deadline when the team is not a contender. This is anything but “boneheaded”. Do you really look around the league at the deadline and wonder why all these bonehead teams are stupid enough to trade away pending free agents? Literally ever GM in the league makes these trades. The Yankees traded away Chapman. Do you think Yankee fans think that move was boneheaded now? The relative value of trading of Escobar is still to be seen. If Duran ends up being an average BP guy it’s a modest win. It’s a big win if he becomes a high leverage RP. In the event he reaches something close to his ceiling, this is the kind of move that dramatically improves a team. This is exactly the type of move that opens or extends a window. The extremely shortsighted approach you advocate is a really good way to ensure mitigating relative success over the long-term. Escobar and Lynn were not going to get that team to the playoffs. At best the net result would have been a couple extra wins. It's possible Duran / Maciel / Alcala and Celestino all falme out. However, I think it’s fair to believe those trades will very likely have significant benefit over the course of 6-7 years. To forego that possibility for a couple regular season wins would be absolute incompetence so I really don’t understand labeling it “boneheaded”.

None of the members of "Most of us" have ever made a case based on performance that Kirilloff is the best option on opening day. All of "most of us" have only seen Kirilloff play one game in the last year and his Milb performance prior most certainly does not suggest he is the best prepared on opening day. Therefore, the premise that it is service time manipulation has a very weak foundation. I would bet that Rookers family is 100% convinced he has the better resume in terms of readiness. Jake cave has proven he can play at this level and he is a better defender. A case could even be made for Garlic being the better prepared on opening day based on the fact he produced a 1057 OPS at AAA with 300ABs and has ML experience. Point being that the accusation of service time manipulation is not as logical as your statement suggests. Now, if the Twins feel the alternate site was a reliable predictor or readiness, so be it but none of the people in the group of "most of us" had access to that evidence. I also did not agree with the assumption Arraez would start in LF. As I stated previously, he is very poor defensively in the OF and his bat does not profile as a corner OFer. Had we targeted a free agent with the exact profile the FO would have been ridiculed so I don't understand the surprise Arraez wont be played in LF.

How many teams have a backup SS that is better than Polanco?

Of course, why should we worry. It's not like people die from Covid-19. This might be the most absurd statement I have ever seen on TD.

One guy / one data point provides absolutely no value. The approach Drivlikejuhu used which includes the entire population is the correct approach. The premise that a majority of players will perform better in his first 3 weeks in majors vs his final year of arbitration is ridiculous. If not, why would we every sign a free agent. More importantly, the value proposition here is not based on relative ability in year 1 vs year 6 or 7. It's the first 3 weeks vs a year of control in a players prime. This is the kind of arguments teenagers make when they want something that is irrational.

What I find silly is to base his readiness on that they started him in a playoff game. The only thing that indicates is that they did not have a better option on that given day. It certainly does not prove he is the best option on opening day. What's really silly is that we have several years of Milb data but not a single person who is calling for Kirilloff to start opening day is willing to make a case based on his Milb performance. Prove your case with his numbers. Shows us other corner OFers who were promoted to the ML level with similar AA numbers and no AAA experience.

I quit reading when I reached the bolded text. This is a ridiculous statement. Your suggestion is that this player is likely to be far more valuable in their rookie season as compared to their last year of arbitration. Furthermore, you are suggesting that 3 weeks of Kirilloff at the start of the season is more valuable than his age 29 season.

Not correct. Berrios is back next year too. I like their odds of coming up with at least one starter among Duran / Balazovic / Canterino / Sands / Winder and Ober. Enlow is also not that far off. So, if just one of them succeeds we just need one good free agent SP next year. They can also easily spend the combined salary of Pineada and Happ. Another option would be to use the savings to extend Berrios. Either way, I have to disagree with your warning for next year. We are going to be in the best position we have seen in a long time if two of those SP prospects hit in the next year or year and a half.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Take a look at next year’s roster construction. We have to replace 2 starters who will be free agents. I think we will see 3-4 SP prospects get a shot this year. If just one of them excels, the payroll allocated to Pineda and Happ can be reallocated to one (higher profile) SP instead of two. In other words, we can afford one of the top free agents pitchers. We are not likely to win the war for Syndergaard but there are a few others that would look good in a Twins uniform and the rotation would be well positioned for at least 3-4 years. Lewis not only making it but reaching his potential is also an obvious big deal. Our middle infield should be well set and we have several good options for the corner Ifers. That’s also another $10M (Simmons) that can be reallocated. If we establish a SP and Lewis, our payroll will be around $100M assuming we don’t resign Cruz. That should leave us well positioned to add final pieces.

What "bonehead" moves did they make it 2018?

So your argument is that a couple of absolute superstars were ready at 19-20 years of age. How about if we look at their performance. You know … the evidence they were ready to play. Tell us how his performance demonstrates he is ready for MLB. Of course, you will ignore this because there is no way to conclude his performance demonstrates he is ready to perform at the highest level. The anecdote that he started a playoff 1 playoff game is a desperate reach to come up with validation when his track record won’t provide it. The Twins started Polanco in 5 games at age 20. Did that mean he was ready for the ML level? Acuna is actually a counterargument to your position. He had an 895 OPS at AAA vs 756 for Kirilloff. Yet, he was sent to AAA. He proved he was ready with an OPS of 940 over 54 games. (almost identical to Rooker) So, if you are advocating Acuna’s path who performed much better than Kirilloff at AA, Kirilloff should go to AAA for a couple months. Sota had an OPS of 1218 at age 19 before they brought him up in 2018. To compare Kirilloff and Soto is ridiculous. Not one person is making a case for him based on performance. It’s all anecdotal. What I really would like to know is how anyone has an informed opinion outside the organization when he has not played competitive BB in a year. The arguments are self-indulgent. How is it not a perfectly acceptable strategy to start him at AAA and allow him to prove he is ready for MLB?

Kepler's deal is actually $31.75M. I would bet the FO has seen the OF situation a little differently than TD followers. Instead of trade depth, I think they saw the opportunity to end up with 3 corner OFers that collectively provide better offensive production. Rooker being RH provides the opportunity to rest one of them against tough LH pitching or use Rooker as the DH. This scenario also offers a couple other benefits. The one probably most present in the minds of the FO is that no only could this combination be quite a bit more productive than Rosario/Kepler but the team could also be better off by reallocating the payroll. In other words, Kirilloff / Larnach / Rooker + free agent addition with savings >>> Kepler/Rosario. Of course, these players will also be under control for a longer period. We will see what happens with the CBA. The teams future is also likely gets better from whatever Kepler brings in trade.

I agree. However, the plan with the highest likelihood of success is not at all clear. Remember when so many here insisted we bring up Berrios because he would be our best pitcher. I remember that chatter with Burdi too. None of us has seen him play for an entire year with the exception of one game. So, for anyone outside the organization to claim to know his readiness is hard to take serious. I have not heard one person make their case based on performance. Kirilloff has an unspectacular stint at AA and he has never played a single inning at AAA. That s not the resume of a player that has proven to be ready. If we are really concerned about every win we would engage a different plan. We have a spot open and fans want to see the highly anticipated prospect. However, Rooker clearly has better Milb credentials. We could even make a case for the best way to start the season would be to platoon Cave and Broxton while waiting a month for Kirilloff is ready.

I think the term setting yourself up for disappoint came from baseball fans who are distraught if their team does win the world series. It seems foolhardy to me to get to wound up about an outcome with a 3% chance of being realized. Of course, that assumes all teams have an equal chance and that's not the case. High revenue teams win the WS on a more frequent basis than low revenue teams. I want to watch a good team for a high percentage of the 162 games. Give me good entertainment for 6 months and I am not going to slit my wrists if they don't win it all. There are so many other things with far greater significance to worry about.

Arraez does not have a bat that profiles in the OF. He is also quite poor defensively. Rooker had an OPS 150 pts higher last year and he cant be much worse than Arraez in the OF. Obviouly Rooker's sample size was small but its reasonable to expect a 100 point higher OPS from Rooker. Cave would also have a higher OPS and he is a much better defender than Arraez. Broxton would definitely provide better defense. He could potentially be platooned with Cave.

Chicago is only go to play 161 games?

You have completely changed the topic. If you want to discuss a specific move that might make us more formidable in the playoffs .... great! Whether Kirilloff has earned a spot having never played an inning at AAA and a modest showing at AA is a different topic. Whether forfeiting a years control for 3 weeks of an unproven player is a different topic. Whether 3 weeks of Kirilloff is essential to our success in a different topic.

Who here would opt to accept 3 weeks pay fresh out of college instead of an entire years pay 6 years post graduation when its fair to assume you will be more valuable? If this was considered in investment terms the return is 17X assuming you were not more valuable after 6 years experience. Your child may not understand this but people making asset management decisions better.

I see it differently. Boras is the reason extending is not a solution to the service time issue. The reasons it does not make sense to start the season with Kirilloff in LF are as stated earlier. I ask again, why is so important to have an unproven rookie in LF for 3 weeks? You said it yourself ... you are not worried about the future. That's really where we differ greatly. You are no different than many fans. Many only care about the present. That's fine as a fan. It's absolute incompetence as a GM. If I offered you 3 weeks pay no or an entire years pay six years from now when your productivity and therefore income is higher which would you take?

OK, it's not completely unprecedented but you are talking about an extreme rarity. Then there is the point Drivlikejehu makes which is a crucial point ... The player and his agent must be willing. Luis Robert and Alex Kirilloff are not the same. Additionally, these players are not equivalent cases. They both played at the AAA level and dominated. Also, Robert is an absolute elite athlete who plays a premium position. His defensive value was assured. Jiminez also played at AAA and dominated. He had a 996 OPS. Even if we ignore the likelihood Boras would never allow an extension at this point, these scenarios are most certainly not equivalent scenarios. Why is it so important that a guy who has still not proven himself above A ball be on the opening day roster? Is it really going to matter if the team waits for him to show 1 month of dominance above A+ ball?