Major League Ready

Chicago was at the bottom of the league in part because as a team their plate discipline was at the bottom of the league. I would bet that was part of the reason they signed Grandal was to provide an example / leadership. He takes great ABs. The Yankees have a culture / history of taking "professional" ABs. Rosario's plate discipline onthe other hand is at the bottom of the league and he makes more defensive mistakes than anyone on the team. Hard to evaluate leadership dynamics from afar but the team might just be better off without this type of "leadership".

I am sure you would agree that aggressive does not cost much in this case and has big upside. Pay up enough they can't say no and get an option year for the guarantee.

OK - Walker is a good lottery ticket. Wood seems like a better bet but I don't see why we could not sign both.

I don't understand the support for Walker. He has had 1 season season. Great potential but no results. I like taking a shot with Archer but I am guessing the Pirates hope for a bounce back and deal him at the deadline. I would like to know what the team's medical experts think about Price. I would like to get Wood for sure and then trade for either Archer or Price. I could be convinced on Walker if the brain trust is convinced he is healthy. Robbie Ray is interesting but I don't see the Dbacks trading him either.

You have jumped to a conclusion that suits your agenda. I did not even hint these two teams were the only examples the Twins should follow. This particular example was the result of me asking over and over with no success for someone to provide an example of success derived from the practices posters have insisted are essential to success. No such examples were given. I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say that many posts were adamant that getting to the WS required specific types of aggression. When not a single poster was willing to provide an example, I answered my own question by listing the only two below average revenue teams that have won the WS in the past 15 years. The point was not these were the only examples. The point was that there were no examples of success being achieved via the practices claimed to requisite to winning the WS. Anyone willing to be objective could learn something from these FACTS. Being below average in revenue obviously has a correlation to playoff success and it’s getting worse. Substantiated (not necessarily proven) by the FACT below average revenue teams won 9 WS in the previous 30 years and only 2 in the past 15. So, maybe it’s NOT just the Twins FO that is the problem. Two, the lack of success following the practices suggested here would suggest these practices are not the most effective strategy.

I have said over and over that I would have liked to get Wheeler. My logic was the same. Part of our difference in opinion is that I don't assume to know what happened. Somewhere I read a story the Twins were told not to bother because he was not coming here. IDK and neither does anyone else here. I can tell you that corporate America has the same kind of assumptive conclusions throughout the ranks and I have heard more assumptions than I can count. The vast majority were wrong. It's so prolific that at one point I traveled to all of the larger regional offices once a quarter and held a town meeting. Conference call for the smaller offices. Staff could ask questions and very little was out of bounds. There was still plenty of wild assumptions but it did promote a good work climate. I have also said the same for our financial position. However, that does not just spend the money regardless of the expected production. The Twins have to yield double the production per dollar spent as compared to the Yankees and of course this is true to varying degrees (ratios) with all of the teams with above average revenue. This is not an opinion it's an absolute certainty. I often hear it's not my money. No, it's not but if your goal is to build the best team possible, we should still want the money spent in a manner that produces the most wins per dollar spent. Morton and Cruz instead or Arrieta or any number of FAs instead of David Price, etc.

The fact is that two (13.3%) of WS winners have been teams with below average revenue. There is no arguing there is a strong correlation between revenue and winning. That correlation is getting stronger. Over the past 30 years, there were nine (30%). Why exactly this occurred would be interesting debate but there is no debate revenue has substantial influence on winning the WS. This is FACT not opinion. The fact that the teams has payroll capacity to sign a given FA has little significance in the determination if that investment is an effective means to achieve success. This is where the FO and fans are going to disagree often. Fans like to assume they have the information and skill set / experience to possess a superior understanding of what needs to be done. It’s a product of fanaticism.

Sorry but the sample size of teams was every team in the league for the last 20 years. The result (not the sample size) was two teams. There were 4 if you include the Rays and Royals for making it to the WS and losing and I did acknowledge the 2014 Royals. It's just hard to conclude the trade for Schields put them over the top when the won the year losing him. I did not bother to include the Rays because I knew they did not sign any big FAs. I don't find it "friendly" to insist the FO is either cheap or incompetent. If have no problem with the presentation of facts that support a mistake or bad practice. However, unsupported opinion should be tempered and not presented in the form of other people (the FO or ownership) must be cheap or incompetent.

I don't disagree. You (and others) are refusing to acknowledge what I am saying. Put another way, you are refusing to look at hard fact or history or whatever you want to call it. You can't say a big FA signing is essential when it has not been dome in the past 20 years and perhaps more. I didn't go back any further.. If this type of roster construction is necessary, there would be examples of teams with below average revenue winning via this practice. The opposite is true. The teams that have won or even made it to the WS improved from within. The CWS traded away their best position player it what ended up to be a bad trade for several years to come and the Royals lost the Elite SP to free agency the year before the won. Yes, the made it their the year before as a WC team but they obvious improved from within and their improvement came in a deadline deal. Some of you are also missing the point that it does not make sense to freak out that the FO did not pull the trigger on Wheeler / Bumgarner or Ryu. FAs acquisitions with this profile have been very poor. I have put up that history previously. I am not going to bother again because it is obviously just ignored. Yes, my off-season plan included Wheeler at 5/100. The difference in my acceptance of not getting him is that I don't just ignore he wanted to go somewhere else. I have part of recruiting high-end talent. Sure I could have just offered them whatever it takes but those here who suggest that just cant accept is not a practice that facilitates success and I guarantee you they have never been responsible for the bottom line. I have also been recruited for very attractive positions and declined because I preferred to stay near family. So, in case some of you still do not understand my point, its not that I would not have signed Wheeler at 5/100 as predicted or even 5/120. I just don't think it's worth freaking out over given the fact he just did not want to be here and it does not make sense to pay whatever it takes when you are already dealing with a practice that fails more than it succeeds. At this point I would maker a trade provided the cost is not absolutely nuts or I might even make two trades (if possible) for comeback candidates like Archer. A rental at the deadline is also a possibility.

Show actual evidence to support your point that teams with similar profiles have been built in the manner you insist has to happen. I have showed the only examples of teams with similar that have actually won the WS in the past 15 years. Anyone can assume they are smarter than the FO. You can keep There should be plenty examples of successful teams if your position has any merit.

Thanks for demonstrating my point by ignoring my point. I just demonstrated the only WS winning teams with a similar profile won the WS without a big move so why do you jump to "sell off the core". Many here are unwilling to demonstrate any objectivity. Objectivity requires looking at the facts. There has not been a WS winner build in the manner many people here insist is absolutely required. The fact is that FAs in general have a very poor track record. The fact is that successful teams with less than league average revenue have not followed the practices that some here insist are required for success. Show me some evidence. That's not to say we should not sign FAs or make trades but to loose your mind because the FO demonstrates some discipline is not exactly advanced critical thinking. Let's examine some facts. Let's look at evidence to support conclusions or even support our theories. It would reduce the amount of angst here. We can assume we know more than the FO or we can attempt to understand what they know that we don't. We can continue to believe we should follow practices applied by teams with $100M or $200M or $300M in revenue or we can examine how to be successful with the financial resource available to the MN Twins.

I very specifically stated teams with league average revenue. Each of these teams have enough incremental revenue to pay for those FAs and have the Twins revenue left over. You have changed a critical variable. How those teams were constructed offers no validation of what is a successful model for lower revenue teams. Ignore it if you like but the problem is your assumption that this does not matter. BTW ... The Astros did a great job trading good but not great assets for impact players. I would welcome a similar trade now but who would that be? We should also acknowledge these moves were facilitated by a series of incredible draft success. The one mistake they did make got erased for them and they got Bregman for the returned pick. I guess the fanned on Appel but they killed it in the draft for several years straight.

There was absolutely no cherry picking. I included the only two teams with below average revenue to win the WS in the past 15 years and I prefaced my post with that qualifier. The inability of some fans to recognize that teams with $80 or $180 or $380M have acquisition options that teams with less than average revenue do not might be the basis of discontent here. However, if you take a few minutes to look at the way teams with less revenue have built winners, it’s quite obvious high dollar FAs play almost no role at all. The same is true of trades for established stars. It’s also quite obvious looking at the WS winners in the past 20 years that the high revenue teams have a distinct advantage. I could have included the Rays who made it to the WS and lost but I knew they did not sign any long-term / big dollar FAs because they never have. If they have ever traded away a top prospect, I am not aware. I could have used the A’s or Ray’s from just last year. Their rosters had great influence from 1 and 2 year FAs and players that were acquired as prospects. The largest free agent contract on their rosters was Charlie Morton for 2/30M. I could have even used last year’s Dodger team who did not have a free agent or established player they traded for that contributed more than 1.5 WAR. Of course, they have Kenley Jansen on their roster but he has contributed a total of 1.5 WAR over the past two seasons. I could have included Arizona signing Greinke. They won 69 games his 1st year. They did manage to win 93 games in 2017. However, they got creamed in the LDS. The next two years they had 82 and 85 wins. In 2017, They were led by a homegrown player (Goldschmidt) and strong contributions from home grown SPs. Godley was #2 on that team. He was acquired as a prospect. Robbie Ray was #3. He was acquired from Detroit with a total of 28 IP at the ML level. Patrick Corbin was 4th in terms of WAR among their Sps. He was acquired as a prospect. They did acquire Taijuan Walker via trade and he contributed 2.5 WAR. He had never exceed 1.8 WAR previously and did not exceed 1 WAR going forward. They did give up Sean Segura and Mitch Hanger to get him. Segura led the team in WAR at 5.o the year before and he produced 8.9 WAR over his remaining 3 years of control. Haniger was hurt last year but he put up 4.5 WAR in 2018. Obviously, not the kind of exchange we want for our team giving away multiple years of control of impact players. Actually, it’s the kind of move being asserted here as essential to winning when in this case was very counterproductive. Would love to see all your example of where league average revenue teams pushed all-in with success.

Many here speak as if it’s a fact that wining the WS requires big off-season moves and that building a WS winner requires paying up for elite FAs or trading away top prospects. I keep hearing you have to do X. Yet, I have seen no examples where X led to a WS win. So, I looked back. There have been two teams with below average revenue that have won the WS in the past 15 years. They are the 2005 CWS and the 2015 Royals. What did those teams add/subtract the off-season via free agency or trades before winning the WS? How were their rosters constructed? 2015 Royals Who did they add or subtract through FA or trade? They lost their best SP to free agency. KC also lost one of their best position players / DH (Butler) They added Edwin Volquez who received $2/20M. He would probably be referred to as a dumpster dive here. They also added Kendrys Morales. A good pick-up but hardly a big contract at 2yrs/15.5M. Their other add was Alex Rios on a 1yr deal. He has .3 WAR the previous year and negative WAR in 2015. They did not have any elite SPs to start the year. The got 2.7 WAR from Volquez and 2.7 WAR for from Ventura who really was not what we would call established going into 2015. They added Cueto and Zobrist at the deadline. Cueto was mediocre during the remainder of the regular season. He was pretty decent in the playoffs but certainly not the difference in them winning the series 4-1. Zobrist was good addition during the regular season and the playoffs. KCs position players led the way. Cain was their best player and he was acquired by trading away Greinke. Escobar also came over in that trade. Their other top position players were Mustakis / Hosmer and Gordon. All three were acquired through the draft. This team was built through the draft and by trading away an elite player. They actually lost their best SP and replaced him with a SP that did not have nearly the credentials of Shields. 2005 CWS The CWS traded away by far their best player (Carlos Lee) the off-season before winning. He had 5.5 WAR in 2004. The did get Scott Posednak in that deal who produced 1.9 WAR. The CWS also signed Jermaine Dye to a 5yr/$36.5M deal. However, Dye had not been over 2.0 WAR in the previous 4 years. He had 2.2 WAR in 2005. The also add AJ Perzinski. He had 1.6 WAR. Not insignificant but certainly not a difference maker. The 2005 CWS won behind a good pitching staff. Buhrle led who they drafted led the staff. Garcia and Garland were traded for in previous years. They gave up a decent player for Garcia and nothing for Garland. They both simply had great years but this staff had no virtually no impact from FAs and they did not give up top prospects. Their best position players were Konerko / Rowand and Iguchi. They acquired Konerko in 1998 by trading away Mike Cameron when Konerko had a ½ season of MLB experience. Rowand was drafted by the CWS. Iguchi was acquired as a FA for 3yrs/7.95M. Like KC, the CWS lost an elite player and did not add any elite players the off-season before winning the WS. Their roster construction was not influenced by big FA signings or players acquired for top prospects.

Really, I am not firmly sure of any FO activity because we have tidbits and it's exceptionally poor analysis to come to any firm conclusion about anything when you have a fraction of the information and anything you do have is second hand. Over the years I have heard thousands of insinuations or assumptions about companies I worked with on some form of strategy. Those employees or other interested parties were right about 5% of the time. Get bent out of shape if you like but the odds are your conclusions is a product of bad or missing information.

That's interesting. The net difference is basically Gibson in the who we lost column. Castro and Availa are a wash. We added a half season of Romo and a full season of Clippard. Plus, I would hope they are not done yet. We also have Arreaz for a full season.

It does not appear the Mets are punting so why should we believe Thor is available? Is this another would have / should have comment or is there some credible report suggesting they would trade Thor?

I am speechless! I was going to go over a little economics 101 but what's the point.

I could have swore we signed two of them. There is also a very good possibility they felt they had all of the next tier we needed and were sticking it out trying to sign Ryu. Anyone ranking below Pineda is not exactly the difference maker we need.

Other than the odd deal with Garcia what FA have they traded? Cruz / Schoop / Cron / Pineada. I guess they traded Lynn but how do you come to the conclusion their goal was to acquire and trade?

Sorry. I did in fact quote the wrong post. This is the post I meant to quote. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It’s only been said a million times on here. Most by me haha. What does everyone prefer? A.) A team that continually wins its division and plays the course every year using the farm system to supplement FA losses. Never making any big moves and always getting to the playoffs but never having enough firepower to make an October run to the World Series(2000’s Twins). B.) A team that builds from Within. Stacking up high draft picks in order to build a team. Continually at the bottom of the league. Finally getting a core, makes very aggressive moves and trading away top prospects to supplement your core. Making the World Series 2 years in a row and winning it once. After that returning to the bottom to hopefully do it again in 5-10 years.(2013-2016 Royals). There’s no such thing as dynasties anymore in MLB. You get to chose one of these. Which do you pick? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I should add I don't agree with the concept. I agree dynasties are a pipe dream, especially for mid-market team. However, sustaining a window or success or however you want to measure it is possible. I watch almost every game / every year. The Royals sucked for most of 20 years, got hot as a wildcard team one year and they were a dominant team for one year. Now the suck and probably will continue to suck for a long time. Not a model I care to emulate. I understand there are a lot of fans who prescribe to the go all in theory. I don't find that to be sound judgment given that particular outcome happens once every 30 years if our franchise wins their fair share and I don't want to watch 100 loss teams.

Were the Dodgers, Angels and all of the other teams interested just cheap too?

I am not sure why you use the Royals as an example of free agents contributing to winning a world series. The free agents they had are they type that are ridiculed here. The problem I see here consistently is the insistence that signing free agents is the path to post season success. Have you noticed this position is never supported here by any actual history of success. The were actually better and won the WS after their big acquisition was gone. Cueto was a deadline pick-up so that example does not support complaining they have not done anything yet. Cueto who had nothing to do with getting them there as he pitched relatively poorly. He was decent in the playoffs but they won 4-1. Pretty hard to say his acquisition was essential to the Royals winning the WS. The trade for Davis was actually more important to them winning the WS and he would certainly not been considered a big acquisition at the time of the trade.

Davis made $18M last year / $17M this year. Our BP total is $16.5M. It's not likely to get any more expensive the next couple years either. Between the BP and the rest of our core we are in a position to take a chance on Ryu's durability or just sign Donaldson. I would like to see them trade Rosario and sign both.

So you assumption is because they have not signed a 4th established starter by Dec 20th. that the current roster is their completed plan. Man you would be a tough guy to please as a sales manager.