Major League Ready

No doubt we disagree. The difference is you have come to a conclusion based on assumption on the relative merit of this strategy. After reading this same idea here in the past, I was curious as to how the strategy would have worked out historically. More specifically, it made sense to determine how well the FAs did after the first year of their contract before drawing any conclusions as to its merit. Other than a couple truly elite guys (Scherzer / Greinke) the production from these contracts after the first year has been horrible. This is hard fact if you are actually willing to look at the facts. If you go purely on past results it would be gross incompetence to sign this specific type of free agent in a year when a team is not a realistic contender. It’s a small sample size so I would not hold to rigidly to what this data suggests but it certainly illustrates why teams don’t sign top free agents SPs until they believe they are ready to contend. If you have examples of success stories, go ahead and make your case with actual evidence. Right now you are telling me something has to me done where the facts strongly dispute your opinion.

And you are simply avoiding hard fact or at a minimum history. I have listed the history of free agent SPs by WAR. I am not going through the effort again but the production is horrible after year 2. If free agents SPs perform by far better the 1st two years, why would you want to sign them when you are a year away from contention best case scenario and most likely case scenario 2 years. Congratulations. You wasted the years when they were productive and now you have their expense prohibiting you from adding them when it would make a difference. You have a concept / assumption. I have proven that assumption to be invalid you are just ignoring fact/history and telling me something has to be done without any data to support your position.

I think Pillar or Herrera would be good additions. However, you were looking well beyond 4th OFers in the original post and previous comments which is what I found objectionable.

Hopefully Lewis is our SS for many years. If not, let's hope he is our Chris Taylor. That would be good too.

Really well done by both parties! The very first post was an eye opener for me. Over the years I have heard the sayings about pitching and defense so many times and the actual results tell a different story. Very education. Thanks for the effort!

Your frame of reference in planning is one year. The FO frame of reference is what is the best way to build a contender. Many teams plan to develop a contender by investing years in development. In this case, a very reasonable plan is to invest one year in order to be a contender for several years. Taking development time away from players that are ready in a year where the odds of contention are very low is a really good way to never build a real contender.

This is a fair point. Top of the rotation FAs are in very short supply and Minnesota is not likely high on their list. As I said, I was projecting my preference and basically a best case scenario. Developing the other 4 spots would make signing an ace more viable. They could afford to be very aggressive on one player. The reality is they acquired two good prospects and they still have the Berrios money to spend. Does it really matter if they spend on Berrios or someone very similar. The net is still two good prospects. I guess my real point here was that Berrios or someone like him are not real difference makers in the post season. I like the idea that they would be positioned and could possibly sign someone even better. Granted, that's the best case scenario but I would hope they make moves to enable a best case scenario. Spending the money on someone like Berrios can always be the fallback position. One last thought. Who have we really missed out on that would have been a difference maker other than Wheeler. Obviously, we didn't sign these guys but who among them would have made a big impact. Cole at $300M+ was simply not realistic. Are we glad we didn't get Bauer? I know I am glad they didn't sign Bumgarner. Darvish has never been good for an entire season. Kuechel was not that highly regarded here but that would have been good. Patrick Corbin was good early and he is now another good example of SPs who were good early in their contract. Arietta was only 3 years at $25M/yr. He was a popular choice here but he has been mediocre at best. Ryu (at least so far) seems like the one realistic target they missed out on. Who am I missing.

I have previously posted the specific result of ever free agent SP that signed a 5 year or more deal in the past 20 years. I am not guessing or assuming. As best I can recall there average WAR after the 1st year was 1.2. I went back to 2012 and there are not that many. Take a look at David Price / Johnny Cueto / Jeff Samardzija / Jordan Zimmerman / Anibal Sanchez / CJ Wilson. There contracts have run there course. Darvish has never been the answer. He has never put together a full year. Arietta got a short deal on a high AAV. He was never better than mediocre. Bumbgarner has been bad. More recently Patrick Corbin started out great and sucks now. Even Jon Lester was only good for the first half of his deal and then became a detriment. The history is quite clear that free agent pitchers are less and less likely to be productive as their contracts age.. You want to know why this team and other teams wait until they are poised to contend to sign them... This is the answer. You are welcome to assume they just don't understand how to build a team if you like.

And where did I ever suggest high starters would sign a 2 year deal?

You are mixing where we were with present reality. They were on a path. I am sure (like every other team) they hoped things went perfectly and all those pitching prospects didn't miss a year and then all be hurt the next year. I am sure they hoped Kepler's breakout would be sustained and Sano would find some consistency. I am sure they hoped Buxton would stay healthy etc etc. **** happens. How you deal with it is what matters.

I have to admit I was projecting how I would approach it. They have quite a few guys that could become 2s & 3s. They also have depth and if they actually build a homegrown staff it would provide the financial ability to sign a top of the rotation guy while retaining Buxton and filling other holes. Maybe they saw it as they could pay market for Berrios or they could pay for any other "Berrios type SP" and also get two good prospects. It did not seem like he had more desire to be here as opposed to somewhere else. Therefore, our odds are no worse at signing his replacement. Plus, we gain two good prospects. That's how Tampa would do it. The fact that they did not get it done does not mean they were not willing. There simply were not any Ace types available last year unless you count Bauer. Not going there would have to be considered good judgement. I think they really wanted Wheeler but Wheeler wanted to be on the East coast. Insisting they should win a bidding contest with a team that has $100M more in revenue and the player really wants to be there is not very reasonable. The 2nd choice of posters here was Bumgarner and signing him would have done more harm than good. I guess the bottom line is they can spend the money that would have gone to Berrios elsewhere and they have two good prospects. In addition, they have never produced a homegrown staff which would position them to spend on one great pitcher instead of 3. They have that opportunity now. IDK if it's going to happen but the possibility is exciting.

Assuming as much as some have here in developing conclusions in an actual business is a good way to never be given any authority to make decisions. We don't know nearly enough to be taking an adamant stance. We should all remember what happens when we assume. Maybe they just really liked the two prospects they received and felt the best strategy was to take the two prospects and spend the Berrios money on a true ace when the time was right.

If you bothered to actually consider what I said you would have realized my statement in no way suggests they should not sign impact pitchers. It should not be to hard to deduce that if free agent SPs are far more productive in their first year or two, then signing them for the "long-term" does not make sense. If you only get a year or two with a high probability of success it would make sense to add when the other pieces are in place which was clearly the message if you look back. You have reduced the conversation to twisting it to absurdity in suggesting that this means they should only rely on developing pitching.

Why play anyone who is not part of the future in a year we are not going to contend. Why not use that time to develop Larnach or Celestino? If they fail you could give Wallner or Martin a shot mid-season. Dedicating a roster spot / playing time to anyone that is not a long-term difference maker makes no sense.

What's the difference if you have 2 SPs contribute 300 IP and 2 RPs contribute 140 vs 4 SPs contributing 110 IP each. It's literally identical. It's actually probably less stress because they are not up and down like RPs.

In the unlikely event the White Sox had a deal with Rodon to match any offer we would not be able to sign him. If such a deal did not exist they did not extend a QO because they knew better. So I fail to see your logic. It seems like desperation. That's just fine for fans. Not so good for a FO.

I realize there are decent options that are not 5 year contracts but have you ever listed all of the 5+ year deals and looked at WAR by year, specifically after year 1? There have been a couple guys like Scherzer and Grienke that performed over their entire contracts. Outside of these truly elite SPs, the majority of free agents SPs are not very productive after the 1st year. They are horrible after the first two years. Therefore, if history repeats itself, the strategy of getting them for the long haul is a really bad idea. The middle of the road guys are seldom difference makers. They are sometimes good supporting cast like Pineada.

If there was an arrow in the center of the bullseye, this arrow would split it down the middle. As tough as it is for some folks to accept, the best case scenario is a product of developing pitching and it sure looks like the front office agrees with you. That said ... Rodon on a two-year deal would be great even if he becomes a trade chip.

How do you know their 2022 budget? Have they stated an amount?

Kepler is not getting traded for established pitching. It's possible in combination with other assets but teams willing to trade away establish pitching are going to want high quality prospects. Kepler has become the new Brian Duensing.

Probably nobody without eating a lot of salary. However, who knows, he could have a great first half and be attractive to a contender especially with the universal DH in place. In that scenario the Twins have probably gotten a look at Miranda or Arraez becomes the everyday 3B. Seems like the question might be more when than where.

The players have been quite vehement in their opposition to any form of cap. I don’t see that happening. They don’t care about competitive balance as demonstrated by their proposal to cut revenue sharing. You have completely shifted the context of the discussion of $300M contracts. The original point was from a comment where someone said teams were unwilling to spend and don't care about winning. Frankly, if the owners demonstrated the same desire to get every penny than are able, teams would be operating at a gigantic profit. it's not like players would do something else if MLB compensation was half of what it is today. The large contracts were simply used as evidence of their willingness to spend. The union has not included anything on minimum salary increases according to all the reports I have seen. As a matter of fact, this was a point of discussion on MLB radio recently. Their only focus has been free agency and reducing revenue sharing.

I hear ya ... Top players have been and will continue to be paid an absurd amount of money. The prearb compensation should not be $600K while top players are making 50X that amount. The union talks about getting players more in the early years of their career but their actions are focused on the top paid players. They could raise the minimum to at least 800K/900K/1M. I would like to see $800K / 1.M / 1.2M. That would be almost 2X for prearb players somewhere in the neighborhood of $150M. It's also certain the money will be spent. Owners don't have to spend on free agents. Increasing the minimum assures the dollars spent, and rebuilding teams not only are not immune, they are the teams with the most prearb players a greater portion of the $150M would be spent by rebuilding teams. These changes would have virtually no impact on competitive balance. It’s also not going to appreciably change the careers earnings for players that are every day players. It will help wing some dollars to the marginal players and those whose careers end early. It would also help (just a little) in increasing the spending of rebuilding teams. Decreasing team control means increasing competitive disparity. Therefore, I would leave it just as it is. However, the 29 1/2 clause offered by the owners is further than I expected to bend but it is a reasonable compromise. It basically assures anyone good enough to stick around as a regular will get a chance at a big payday. This would provide even more advantage to the largest markets but not to the scale of what the players have demanded.

My point of view is that the 21 rotation was an absolute mess. It won't take much for this rotation to be as good or better. Maeda was not very good and let's not forget they played 500 ball after Berrios left. I am assuming they will add a couple pitchers. Maybe I am reading too much into Pineda not getting traded but it seems like both sides want Pineda to be a Twin. I have no idea what they are thinking for the rest of the rotation but nothing they could do is taking the team from 60 to 90 wins. If they spend another 30M the normal result would be 4 wins. I just don't see how that would be so monumentally important.

Pineda was part of the staff last year but I missed the part about Martin / Lewis. That's premature. Iglesias has to be better than Simmons was last year. Projecting the last couple pieces of the BP is crystal ball stuff but you are right that there are better options for the BP. There are also better options to maintain a decent product in 2022 while positioning the team for 2023 and beyond.