Major League Ready

IDK about that. He sucked last year but so did a lot of otherwise elite players. In 2019 his OPS was by far the highest in all of baseball. 175 points higher than JT Realmuto.

I think you might be confusing quality of player with asset value. A 4 WAR player that cost $35M is probably a better player than a 3 WAR player at $5M. However, the 3 WAR at $5M is a more valuable asset because the $30M delta can be invested in Cruz / Odorizzi and a RP. The equation that best represents value is WAR/$ weighted by years of control. No matter how you slice it or dice it, funds are NOT unlimited and production per dollar equates to value when trying to construct a team (assets). Another way of looking at it is that players who produce a high WAR to cost ratio make it possible to sign players like Donaldson or free agents in general where the cost per WAR is very high.

Yes for Polanco. 2 years of control vs 4 years for Polanco. With Jeffers it depends on how they project his bat but probably given 5 years vs 2. Garver is a toss up with 3 years vs 2. The Rays have been able to compete despite a substantial revenue disadvantage. They maximize asset value in part by valuing years of control. Philly lost big in the Realmuto trade. They were still a 500 team for the two years of service they got by trading for Realmuto for Sanchez. How much better would the Philly's future look with Sanchez?

Clippard would be OK. He is going to be 36 this season. I am hoping for a someone a bit younger and more dominant. I am far more worried about replacing Cruz than Rosario. Cruz had an OPS that was 200 points higher than Rosario over the last two years. Rosario has been very steady around 800 after peaking at 837 in 2017. I would take the over on Rooker if the target was 800 for OPS. Even Jake Cave produced an OPS of 759 over the past two seasons so I think a platoon over Rooker and Cave gets you very close to an 800 OPS.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2021-zips-projections-an-introduction/

It's encouraging to hear from players about the Twins use of analytics. Perhaps even more encouraging is hearing that the staff is doing a great job in coaching them on how to use this information. Great interview, Seth.

In 2019 the Twins had a lot of guys with potential that had not been realized. Kepler / Polanco and Garver all stepped up a level. Sano was also great although he had already shown this level of productivity as a rookie but only played in 80 games. Buxton was quite good too but he only played in 87 games. Arreaz also appeared on the scene. The FO filled in some roles with FAs. I like our odds a lot better in 2021 than I did in 2019. The guys that really produced are still here. However, now they have proven they can produce at a level we had not seen from these players 2019. Before anyone says what about Rosario, he was 11th in WAR among position players. The difference is they are coming off a poor year but a lot of great players did not produce during the shortened season. The 2021 team needs to be rounded out. That starts with one more good SP. Then, a SS or a high caliber utility man like Hernandez. Another RP would be a plus and there are quite a few of them available. I am not sure how much they will spend but Odorizzi, Hernandez and a good RP should be viable.

I considered that but then I thought ... What if Larnach absolutely crushes it the first month of the season? Hopefully, they are both crushing it but what if Larnach puts up a 950+ OPS and Kirilloff is at 800? I guess part of this depends on if Rooker is doing well and also how they approach the DH. It's a different case if Cruz is back.

Could it be that whoever shows they are ready first between Kirilloff and Larnach gets the 1st shot? I sure would like to see both of them kill it to start 2021.

I don't think it's a game of chicken. The starting point of any budget is a revenue projection. IDK about you but I don't have much of a handle on how many games will be lost or when fans will be allowed to return. The difference for the Twins between fans being present from day vs 1/2 the season is roughly $60M. How do you set a budget with that much variance likely? The vast majority of teams are going to budget based on a low estimate. They will increase spending should evidence surface of revenues being closer to normal. However, Falvey could pitch cost averaging. In other words, a 3 year plan where current payroll is set based on a 3 year revenue plan. The logic being players will be less expensive this year and the overall return on investment (productivity per dollar) will be improved by investing more heavily this year. The downside from a fan perspective is that the budget is going to be very tight in 2022-23 if revenues are down anywhere near what they were last year. However, we should have enough young talent emerging by 2022 to manage the roster in that event. BTW ... The 10 o'clock news had a story on vaccinations in Minnesota a couple nights ago. They reported vaccines should be available to the general public "late spring to early summer". I am not exactly sure what that means for attendance but the end of the tunnel is in sight.

The only way I see the Twins investing in the highest profile RPs would be if the bottom absolutely falls out of what these RPS have been paid over the past few years. “Volatile” does not quite illustrate how bad of an investment high profile RPs have been of late. Here is a summation of the top 10 RPs signed for the 2018+ seasons. Over the course of 2018 and 2019. None of them had a WAR above 1 for both seasons. In fact, Andrew Cashner was the only one to have a WAR above 1 in either season. Collectively they averaged .3 WAR in 2018 and .19 WAR in 2019. The cost per WAR in 2018 was $30M and $45M per WAR in 2019. The top 10 RPs signed for the 2019 season fair slightly better. Only Adam Ottovito had a fWAR above 9 at 1.3. Zack Britton was at .9 and to be fair bWAR rated them both higher. The other 8 produced a combined 0 WAR. Over the 2 years for the class of 18 and 1 year for the class of 2019, these players produced less than .5 war in 20 of the combined 30 seasons. I sure hope they can find additions with a higher probability of success.

Without looking it up ... I would assume the Rays benefit more from revenue sharing than any other team. 48% of all local revenue is shared equally. Therefore, the revenue shortfall is going to hit them almost as much as the other teams.

So what is your solution? How do you apportion players? How do you prevent the current competitive advantage provided by the revenue gap between top revenue and bottom revenue teams from be exacerbated by reducing control via draft? MLB does not have the parity of the NFL or NHL. The revenue disparity is a primary cause and creates a lot of the bitterness we see here. While some of you think this problem would be resolved by a disregard for profit, the disparity would not be diminished by a willingness to operate at break-even. It would actually be increased.

The Angels did not want him at $4M just like the Twins did not want Rosario at $10M+.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my question with "other than a very small sample size in the Arizona Fall League". We really need him to succeed so his performance in the AFL gave me hope. However, it makes no sense to me to rely on him to start the season because he had a very good 22 game stretch. Let him demonstrate a mastery of at least AA for a couple months. Right now, this sounds exactly like the clamoring that went on for Berrios and he was more experienced and more proven than Lewis.

Can someone explain what about the performance of Royce Lewis would indicate he is ready for the majors? He was good in Low A. He was mediocre in his first year at A+ with an OPS of 726. He was worse in his 2nd year of A+ with an OPS of 665. He was promoted to AA in spite of his lack luster performance. The sum total of his experience at AA is 33 games with a 649 OPS. How does this track record indicate he is ready for the majors? It makes me question if he will ever be an impact player. I still maintain hope but I want to see some sustained success at AA or above before he gets a shot for more than a couple games. Ideally, he performs the 1st half of this season. Then, they can move him to St. Paul and take advantage of our AAA team being local to get a look at him at the MLB level.

Of course it does. However, the majority of operating costs are not variable because they are people, equipment, and services. While we don't know the exact operating costs, Forbes revenue and EBITA projections over the last few years suggest operating costs to be a little over $100M or roughly $650K per game. My WAG on fixed expense is about $500K per game. The net of it that they lose roughly $750K / game playing without fans and $500K / game not playing at all.

I would guess part of the slow off-season is that teams are trying to get a handle on how many games will be missed and how many will be played without fans. For the Twins, each game without fans represents a roughly $750K loss in revenue. I think they still don't have enough information to know how to proceed. If you are in charge of the P&L, being off by 30 days is a big deal unless ownership specifically instructs you to spend at a level that will produce a considerable loss if fans are not present consistent with your forecast. That's not too likely to happen with the possible exception of Steve Cohen.

You are far too rationale and fair minded to post here. Hopefully, that does not stop you from posting more often.

For starters, the termination of at least a portion of these scouts was a product of scouts being let going because they are being replaced with video analysts. Secondly, theses terminations represent 2-3% of employees. Last I checked, 97% could be reasonably stated as nearly 100%. Of course, the financial strain has finally resulted in more layoffs. I thought it was obvious that the point was the MLB teams have been far less inclined to lay-off employees than the vast majority of companies. More importantly, you blew right past the entire point of my post. So, I guess if you can't make a reasonable argument, find a nitpick and ignore the point.

As I review the actions of both sides over the past year, I find it very difficult to conclude all the fault or even the majority of fault resides with ownership. Let's review what happened. The MLB clubs kept on virtually 100% of their employees knowing they were going to get creamed financially. How many companies did the same? Owners paid all Milb players in full even though they did not play a single game. Even the ones that were going to get cut. The Pohlad’s donated $25M in spite of the inevitable losses. The Players said screw the pandemic, we don’t care revenue is going to be off 50%, we want 100% for every game played or we are not playing. The really did not negotiate at all which is why we ended up with 60 games. The owners made proposals that would have given us at least 80 games. The players insisted on a number of games that was not even feasible. They countered every offer with a number of games that was not feasible resulting in a 60 game season. I believe the last offer was 82 games but the players would have gotten somewhere around 80%. Which side was thinking about the fans? Then, the MLBPA portrayed the owners as acting in bad faith because they were not living up to their agreement to pay prorated salaries. While leaking documents is not the ideal approach to getting the truth out, it turned out the two sides had agreed in no uncertain terms that the preliminary agreement assumed fans were present. There was an agreement to renegotiate if fans were not present. The MLBPA not only negotiated in bad faith, they purposely mislead the public and probably even the players. I guess it’s ok the defraud the public as long as you are doing it to make rich people look bad. This article is just another example of extreme bias. Let's blame ownership because they are not like us. What’s worse is the prejudice that is displayed here quite consistently. By prejudice, I mean hatred and the opinion one side should not be treated fairly because they belong to a given group. It’s probably not quite as heinous as hating or basing bias on color, sexual preference or any other distinction but it’s repugnant just the same.

It might be easy but what is it based on. A lot of projections these projections are based on a wish that spending be $X. Budgets are developed based on a revenue projection. I have seen evidence any of the projections here are based on revenue projections. I understand to a degree. Does anyone know how much revenue is going to be impacted? IMO, the team’s projections could change by $10s of millions over the next 60-90 days. This 10% cut in payroll is the equivalent to a 5% decrease in revenue. How many here think revenue will be down by 5% or less? What’s the most likely case scenario? Are we going to play 162 games? Let’s say that best case scenario comes true. When will fans be back? It’s not going to be day 1. Let’s say they are back after only 60 games which would be extremely fortunate. That’s 37% of the season which equates to a $44.4M loss in revenue. Who here would cut their spending by $15K if they knew they were going to make $45K less this year? I sure hope they spend $125M or more but the current revenue outlook does not support it..

While I agree in general, we would have really been misled had the MLB not leaked the infamous memo. The MLBPA was very broadcasting everywhere that the MLB owners had agreed to pay prorate salaries and that they were negotiating in bad faith by presenting other offers. Fans (including me) and the media were starting to come down hard on the owners. As it turned out, the two sides had agreed in no uncertain terms that the preliminary agreement assumed fans were present. There was an agreement to renegotiate if fans were not present. Had that information not come out the MLBPA would have gotten away with exceptionally misleading communication. It looked like the owners were just ignoring their agreement when it was the players who not only ignored the agreement but they were also purposely misleading in their communication.

Don't worry, your prejudice was evident.

Your right “people” (individuals) sell things off. Companies with viable assets borrow against those assets. MLB teams took on substantial debt to pay for their operating losses last year. https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/mlbs-debt-8-3-billion-2020-season-coronavirus What's interesting is that the borrowing that took place is clear evidence of how much team's lost, There are still people insisting they did not have operating losses. Scott Boras claimed very recently that MLB made less profit but they did not have losses. It does not take exceptionally advanced financial skills to know this is NOT true. Therefore, Boras either is not all that financially sophisticated or he does not mind making statements he knows to be false to advance his cause. I am betting on the latter.