Major League Ready

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.

There is none so blind as he who will not see (John Heywood) Of course something has changed and someone that follows the game the way you do can't possibly be unaware. They have valuable assets that will be free agents in 1-2 years and they can't afford to extend them. Oakland and Tampa has a long history of trading these players at this point. Not only do you know this but you know it's how they have been successful. Guess what ... All businesses of all types have similar issues. It's a bitch to compete against much larger organizations and the resources they possess that smaller companies can't afford. BTW ... The exact same thing could have ben said about Chicago or Seattle. These are recent examples of teams doing the same thing ... deciding to rebuild because they felt it was the best way to build a contender. Both teams are now positioned very well and Chicago was very aggressive with free agents when the timing was right. It has been reported that Seattle is now looking to spend. They have a good young core which has positioned them to add via free agency to build a winner.

That's exactly what Houston did. The function / logic is to trade away assets that can't resign just as Tampa and Oakland have done for several years. It's proven quite effective for Oakland and Tampa and even large market teams have employed this strategy (see Mookie Betts) . When small market teams are forced to do this if they are to rebuild a winner. Within this strategy it is necessary to give roster spots to players who can be part of their future. It would appear you think they should be forced to sign free agents so that their payroll remains at what you think is an acceptable level. That strategy impedes the teams ability to develop players to lead them back to contention. What did people around here demand quite aggressively. They asked for the prospects to be played because they were motivated to audition players. That's their motive.

Not sure how that came through but this medium is not ideal for these conversations. My point was those two (not those 3) probably would not be enough to get us to the playoffs and certainly would not make us a serious contender.

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.

I agree with you completely on KC. They have not been a model to follow but someone would have said what about KC had I not included them. That would understandable given they did win a WS even if you and I don't think they are a good model. So, this is the opposite of ignoring evidence. I was including them to be fair but adding that I would not want to follow them would have put it in perspective. For the record, I have said that more than once on this site an got flack because they won the big one. Actually, I have said pretty much exactly what you said here. I even listed the number of 90 loss seasons they have had. I included the Met and Phillies because they have failed even with considerably more financial resource. I can see not even discussing them given the twins can't spend with them but more info is generally better as long as we understand the relative probative value. I would add that the Cubs were heavily influenced by home grown players and then they did what high revenue teams should do when they get a homegrown core ... use their financial resource to their advantage. Of course some teams failed. That is an absolutely certainty and if we want to study how to fail they would be relevant. We want to know how to succeed. Is it at all reasonable to expect that every team would succeed if they followed certain practices. It does not change in the slightest bit the fact that the teams with modest revenue that have succeeded have followed certain practices and those practices are not consistent with what you and others are asking to be done. The fact is that trading for prospects has had a greater impact on building winners among lower revenue teams and there are no examples of low revenue teams winning as a result of signing elite free agents. The error is that you have repeated several times that the desire to make a profit impacts the Twins ability to compete for free agents. This is patently false. The revenue disadvantage would actually increase for low revenue teams because high revenue teams make more profit. Therefore, eliminating profit would increase the financial disparity between low and high revenue teams. You are certainly not the only person to harp on this "problem". So, one more time, do you still think that the Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or compete in general would change even slightly if MLB tams were willing to operate at break-even?

How is it relevant that the Cubs and Dodgers won with free agents? Name a team with equivalent revenue. The whole bloody point is that these teams have financial resources the twins do not. How is it possibly surprising that these teams outbid lesser revenue teams and augment their roster in this way. The White Sox lost in the first round which is a perennial bitch around here. As predicted you also completely ignored the question I posed to you as to how it would make any difference if teams operated at break-even. That's the norm here just ignore anything you don't want to acknowledge and continue to bitch about it. So, show me what I don't understand. alternatively, acknowledge that you simply did not understand that the owners making a profit has nothing to do with Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or their spending relative to other teams. You have plenty of energy to complain so expend a little acknowledging the error.

I agree if the OP meant ever. I guess I should have said almost none of us and there is a case this is not the year. Let's also acknowledge all of the case studies because the collective provides insight. Have the Mets, Angels, and Phillies all failed when putting an emphasis on free agents and trading for establish players. Have the Rays and A's both thrived using the opposite approach suggested by many here. Did the Royals win a WS with a team primarily comprised of home grown players and two players acquired by trading a way Grienke? Did the Braves just win the WS and is the team primarily comprised of homegrown players and players received by trading established players for prospects? Seems that a lot of very tangible examples are ignored if they don't support signing big free agents or trading away prospects. We completely ignore that the teams in the playoffs and/or contending are far more influenced by players obtained by trading away established players vs the other way around.

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.

Bassit and Manea were not good enough to lead Oakland to the playoffs even with Montas who is better than both of them. Why should we believe they would be good enough to lead the Twins to the playtoffs? Oakland had a better offense than the Twins so that's not a difference maker. No doubt we would be better. Sounds to me like an 85-86 win team if things workout. Is that the goal or should we try to build a legit contender?

I can't imagine there is a single person here who does not think the Twins should spend in free agency nor does the FO think they should not attempt to land those players. The disconnect is that some of us are saying that a team with below average revenue is never going to succeed with a heavy reliance on high-end free agents. Feel free to show us examples of where it has worked. Where free agency has worked is when mid market teams sign good free agents that perform like the higher priced guys. IE. The Rays signing Charlie Morton. I don't know where you are going to come up with these examples but below revenue teams land very few of the elite free agents. Therefore, finding a low revenue team as an example probably does not exist. We can come up with teams with considerably more revenue than the Twins that have gone this route and failed. The Mets, Phillies, and Angles have all been trying to succeed with high end free agents. How has that worked. SanDiego signed Machado and traded for three high profile pitchers. How did that work? They even have the benefit of having acquired one of the top 5 players in MLB for nothing. How did the Royals win. They traded an elite SP for a CF and a SS. They made some good picks and developed talent internally. The prime piece of the big trade they made was gone when they finally won the WS. How do the Rays and Oakland do it. How did Chicago do it. They traded away a couple great established players for prospects and drafted well. Signed a great international player in Luis Roberts. Used the payroll flexibility to retain a key player. Again, very big difference between saying they should not spend then saying the key is internal development. The Twins are in a place I don't ever recall them being in the past 20 years. They have a bunch of legit pitching that should get a shot next year. If you don't believe ML experience is important then I guess it does not matter if you just keep them in the ML. IMO, the team is in a great position to finally build a home grown rotation and they could complete that process by the end of 2022. This would put them in a far better position to fill out the team via free agency and trades in 2023. We can stick a bandage on it and have a a shot at contending for a playoff spot if all goes well. They won't be a serious contender but they could get into the playoffs. So, if that's the goal ... yes, they should try to build through free agency. I saved the WS Champs for last. Here are there top 6 position players Freddie Freeman-Homegrown Acuna Jr – Homegrown Ozzie Albies-Homegrown Austin Riley-Homegrown Danby Swanson – Atlanta traded established pitching for a prospect Adam Duval – Braves traded 1 45FV prospect for Duval Here are their top 8 pitchers. Charlie Morton-Free agent ($15M ) Max Fried – Atlanta traded away established players to get Fried as a prospect. Huscart Ynoa – We all know where he came from. Ian Anderson – Home grown AJ Minter - Homegrown Tyler Matzek – Released by Arizona and signed by Atlanta Jesse Chavez – Released and picked up by Atlanta Kyle Muller - Homegrown One significant free agent but $15M on a 1 year deal hardly qualifies as a big free agent spend. Of colurse, they have Ozuna who was acquired via free agency for an AAV of 16.6M. He only played in 48 games and had negative WAR. They trades they made building the club were all established players for prospects. Of course, they made deadline moves that worked out great but gave up nothing / invested nothing for them. Just saying it’s good to understand the track record of different approaches. People around here don’t seem to pay much attention to what’s working and what’s not.

It sure sounds like they are talking about a complete teardown and rebuild. They would be extremely fortunate to be back in contention after 3 years but it's most likely longer. So, best case scenario, they might have one year with Arraez. He has far more value to a team in a contention window or confident they are entering a contention window.

That's a reasonable possibility. It's also reasonable to assume other teams are going to offer high profile prospects. Arraez is the only valuable asset being offered in the trade scenario that started this discussion. Therefore, the only way Oakland get's what they want is if the can roll Arraez for a very high value prospect. Maybe they can maybe they can't. Why would Oakland take that chance if there are offers that include a high profile prospect which you have to believe would be the case.

It's surprising to you that the teams with far more revenue sign the most expensive players. The angst that people feel for this is really misplaced. One, no kidding teams with twice as much revenue sign the most expensive players. Two, paying that high a percentage of salary to any given player is a recipe for failure. As I predicted, a response that does not touch the question how would it make any difference to the twins roster construction if MLB teams operated at break-even? ALl this bitching about profit. I would love to see someone articulate how it matters.

Honestly, I am not sure if we agree or not. I guess my point is that any sustained success for a mid or small market team is far more likely to be a product of developing prospects or trading established players for prospects or ML ready talent that is still unproven at the MLB level. Obviously, free agents can and should play a role but a small or mid market team is not going to be successful by signing top free agents or trading for established players. Part of Tampa's success is that they understand 6 years of control is much better than 2 years of control. I have said more than once that I don't expect fans to be rationale. However, in leagues where there is a salary cap, fans become quite rational about spending. You are still playing the profit card. So, let's get real. Don't dodge the question. How would it change anything for the Twins if MLB owners operated at break-even. You can even assume that they very worst teams didn't spend aggressively. Anyone else is welcome to explain to me how the Twins ability to construct a roster would change if MLB teams operated at B/E. I am predicting no response.

I can't see the A's having any interest in Arraez. They are rebuilding. He will be gone by the time they rebuild.

The point is very simple. Why do fans want our team to follow practices that have little chance for success. The fact that small market teams can't do what the Dodgers do (resign their best players) to sustain success is economic reality. Same point different angle of approach .... There are practices that have been proven to effective. To pursue less viable practices is incompetent. If your household earned an average income, would it make sense for a spouse top complain about not spending like a household with 2X the income? If people want to complain about the revenue discrepancy, OK. However, to complain the front office won't follow bad practice is not exactly logical.

OK. Which below average revenue team is winning multiple division titles? BTW ... The whole rag on profit thing is pure financial ignorance. If all of the teams spent every dime they made after operating costs ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would change. Profit has ZERO to do with the problem. The financial disparity would actually increase so can we quit with the "profit is the problem" BS?

Here comes a bunch of proposals where we trade several mediocre players or prospects. Oakland is not going to give any proposal 2 minutes of thought if it does not contain a high ceiling / high FV prospect.