Major League Ready

Three reasons. 1) MLB Players are habitual creatures and most players prefer to stay if it does not cost them financially. 2) Eliminates the risk associated with injury or poor performance. 3) He just witnessed Dozier's value plummet.

Where to start …. Let’s start with one year bargains. When you started beating that drum I pointed out that only one of the players (Lynn) was a 1 year deal. Morrison and Rodney had team option attached which is even better than a two year deal. You ignored these facts and continue to beat this drum. You keep insisting we should sign FA pitchers now because then we will have them when we need them. I listed all of the free agents SPs listed over the past several years. The FACT is that after the 1st year they have produced an average of 1.3 WAR. Collectively, in 22 season they have produced 3 seasons over 3WAR after the 1stt season while producing 16 seasons of 1.7 or less and 13 seasons of 1WAR or less. How long are going to lean on the Yehlich deal. We would all love to make those deals every day. They are very uncommon. How many deals were made hoping for this result where the player traded for broke out vs performed at his current level and how many busted afterward. There are lots of examples of SPs who were traded that busted. It may have been injury related but the result is still the same. Teams don’t trade break out candidates and we can’t hope for other teams to do the stupid stuff the Marlins have done. That’s why so many teams are interested in Kepler. It would appear they think he is going to break out.

If he produces an identical WAR value this year the cost will be $3.73M per 1 WAR. That is far better than any of the highly touted free agents. You still might be right but he is a good value.

They will probably put Schoop at 3B if Sano is out for a few games. Petit is their AAA depth. If you are looking for a starting caliber 3B just in case does not get it together, that will have to be a mid-season move because there just are not enough roster spots unless you follow Riverbrians plan to have an exceptionally flexible roster.

So offer it now with a signing bonus given by all appearances payroll will be significantly lower this year. They have one other proven SP (Berrios) signed for next year.

If they give Gibson a 3 year extension, he will be the same age Greinke is now at the conclusion at the contract. I hope they extend him but I would not object to trading him if they got a good return.

A "like" is not adequate for this post. The best measure of success would be if we minimized the need to sign expensive FAs or trade away top prospects. The improvements to core capabilities and practices described here are the key to sustained success. Well done!

2022 according to Baseball Reference. Buxton got pushed back a year when they kept him in the minors last year.

True. He could also have a career year. I don't have a problem with them trading him now. I actually think Mike is right they don't have a legit shot but I don't see the need to totally sell out 2019 for a marginal increase in return on Gibson. I also don't think there are any FAs available at the positions we need to fill that would make even close to the type of difference necessary to give them a realistic shot. The only players that would elevate this roster to the point of a realistic shot are be trade candidates that would have an extremely high cost in terms of prospects (IE Realmuto). Even with Realmuto, Syndergaard, and a better 2B, they would still be long-shots to win a playoff series unless most of the other uncertainties pan out nicely. Let's keep in mind we have a 4-5 year window. Only Sano & Rosario are FAs in 2022. Everyone else is 2023. The teams that have been the most successful at rebuilding over the past decade are the teams that actually committed to a rebuild. The last regime refused to commit and we follow plans destined to top out at 85-88 wins instead of doing what is necessary to actually build a team capable of more than winning a weak division.

Would you agree that we have a shot at 2019 but we have great uncertainty surrounding many players? Is it a good idea in general to make a decision (pick a direction) with a great deal of uncertainty. What is the benefit of deciding now? How much better Is the return on Gibson going to be now than at the deadline. If the difference is small, why pick a direction when you will have much better information in July?

Let's take a moment to look back. What percentage of these signings have been the huge difference maker you insist are essential to building a winner. 2018 Eric Hosmer 8/144 – played in a 157 games and produced -.1 WAR. Yu Darvish 6/126/AAV 25 – Obviously added nothing to 2018. Hard to say what he adds to 2019 but it is very unusual for SP to produce at their norm after a year off from injury. Next year he will be 33 ½ so there is a good chance this contract could produce very little for a 6 year period and be detrimental to the Twins extending their core or adding key FAs when they are actually contending. Martinez 5/120 – Great so far. Arrieta – 3/75/AAV 25 – Produced 2 WAR @12.5M/1 WAR. Odorizzi produced 2.6 WAR @ 2.46M/WAR. Arietta would have at best made a negligible difference being added to the rotation. Cain – 5/80M - Been great so far and exactly the kind of guy we should add. Carlos Santana / Wade Davis & Alex Cobb – All serviceable but not much above replacement level. 2017 The top 3 in AAV were Cespedes / Chapman and Fowler. Cespedes produced 2/5 WAR for 2017-18 combined. Chapman produced 3.5 WAR so he has been good, not great. Fowler was no better than what we already have in 2017 and terrible (below replacement) this year. Jansen was great in 2017 and had .4 WAR in 2018. Melancon produced a total of .7 WAR in 2 tears. Justin Turner at only 13M AAV has been fantastic. Ian Desmond has been equally horrible. 2016 – A little more meaningful because we see the impact over 3 years. David Price 7/217/AAV of #31M – He has been decent but not a difference maker. Quite good the 1st year (4.5 WAR). Odorizzi level in terms of WAR the last 2 years. Over $10M/1 WAR and will be 34 at the end of next year. Odds are he had 1 season where he was a difference maker at a cost of $200M. That won’t hurt Boston given they have almost $200M more in revenue but this type of deal is a detriment to the Twins sustaining success. Zack Greinke – Pretty much the same story as price but he has been a little better. One year where he was a real difference maker. The last 3 years are likely a very poor value and the odds are he is not a difference maker going forward. The next 5 in AAV are Chris Davis / Jason Heyward / Johnny Cueto / Justin Upton Jordan Zimmerman, and Jeff Samardzija. Davis is below replacement level. Hayward is a 4th outfielder. Johnny Cueto had a great first year and has been a disaster ever since. Zimmerman produced 3.2 WAR over 3 years. Samardzjia was average in 2016, good in 2017 with 3.8 War and had .2 WAR in 2018. That’s a lot of failure. Failure you can’t jettison when they are long-term contracts. The premise that the answer to sustained success is long-term FA deals is not consistent with history. This does not mean we should never do them but to beat the drum constantly that the Twins failure is a product of an unwillingness to sign long-term deals suggests you have not stopped to consider the relative success of this strategy in recent years. This entire group collectively have produced very few seasons where they were difference makers.

You make a good point in that it's not as simple as just better discipline and pitch recognition is a skill with limitations regardless of approach. Rosario seems to get a pass with most people. I don't think it's pitch recognition because it does not look like he is fooled and he swings at pitches that are not even remotely close. Quite often It looks like he has no approach, no plan whatsoever, just swing at whatever is thrown. He was the worst hitter on the team the 2nd half and it looked to me like the pitchers had adapted and used his lack of discipline to turn him into a very poor hitter. I hope he proves me completely wrong but I don't have nearly the confidence in him as most do here. I would trade him if someone was willing to give value commensurate with his 1st half performance.

How about if a hole bunch of the guys currently on the roster take better ABs and the OBP goes up. There is no excuse for the complete lack of discipline Rosario often displays. I don't remember the exact ranking but he was in the top 10 worst in MLB for swinging outside the zone. There were short bursts where the team overall managed to show some disciplined hitting and it looked like a different team.

I would hope they would shift direction / strategy when the variables or conditions that influence those strategies change. The Whitesox / Orioles / and Mariners are good recent examples and the Braves shifted directions not that long ago and are a shining example of how to do it right. Just because we think Gibson should have or would have brought back a "bluechip" prospect does not mean one was offered. They also may be hoping the team would come together the 2nd half of 18 and they did not want to give up players pivotal to 19. The only players they traded that were signed or where they had an option for 19 was Pressly and Rodney. Rodney was easily replaceable. While Pressly had value for 19, RPs are much easier to acquire than SPs. A 3rd possibility was they hoped to extend him.

Mike, They signed 4 players that made the 25 man roster. Reed / Rodney / Morrison & Lynn. Reed was a 2 year deal. Morrison and Rodney had a 2nd year team option. Lynn was one year. Is it really fair to characterize Morrison and Rodney as 1 year deals when they had a team option. Would you agree that 1 year with a 2nd year option is a much more advantageous position to be in for the team? While I suppose you could make a case you are technically accurate, your portrayal of the situation is misleading.

Baseball is loaded with predictive analysis, is it not? FIP, defensive metrics in general, WAR, etc are all predictive in nature. It's interesting that this board screamed for an analytics driven approach and no that such an approach would likely prove the odds to be long, you want an intuitive approach which is what we had previously. Actually, the approach could be to measure the probability of each individual factor required for the teach to achieve success. IE What is the projected WAR for Buxton / Sano and the entire rest of the team. I would agree if you were to say that model requires a lot of assumption. We could instead look at a much larger set of data while using a somewhat more intuitive approach. We could ask what are the odds of building a BP given the state of ours. What does history suggest. What are the odds of Buxton or Sano producing at the level needed for the Twins to contend. The Twins analytics team could put together a very credible estimate based on the history of all the similar players who failed or succeeded in the past. What are the Odds we get 1st half Rosario and the 64 wRC+ second half Rosario and so on. Revenue is a tough one. I have read several articles trying to get a grip on revenue drivers and the KPIs are unclear and inconsistent. The Twins had stated in the past that they base payroll on previous year's revenue which would make the revenue estimates a moot point and I can see the wisdom in this approach based on the difficulty to forecast revenue. We can also look at history to understand the impact on profits when a team invests and does not perform.In 2017, MIami / Detroit / and Baltimore all invested and did not perform. Collectively, they lost $125M. The top 7 in terms of profit were all contenders who spent within their budget even though they obviously had room to spend significantly more. The Cub / Phillies / Red Sox / Giants / Astros / Dodgers and Brewers combined for $539M in profit for an average of $77M per team. The Twins made $23M by the way in a year they went to the playoffs. Kind of puts the relative focus on profits in perspective. If it were our money or we were bankers or Venture Capitalists we would would demand hard analytics for revenue, margins, capital requirements, competitive analysis and risk assessment. 10s of millions are not invested based on intuition.

I was quite specific the inability was related to the relative value placed on financial performance. Complete disregard for the financial implications does not mean someone is incapable of understanding. Are you going to tell me the difference in desire to spend between fans and the FO does not have a very high correlation to the difference in weight put on profitability between the two groups. I agree that some TDers have put forth reasonable plans. What the he## does that have to do with the this specific conversation which is why some people can't understand why the Twins would not spend every available payroll dollar. Where your new argument is concerned, don't tell me I don't understand the risk / investment side of things. If you understand how this is done in a business environment, show us the actual calculation of the cumulative risk associated with Buxton / Sano / The BP even Rosario who sucked the 2nd half, the bottom 3 rotation spots, injury, probability of success with the FAs that would be essential to putting together a contender. Then, tell me the odds of success are good. Show me the financial projections. There has been absolutely zero data / content presented that measured risk / return or the probability that any given plan would result in X number of wins. What has been presented here is ideas that would no doubt make the twins better. I have not seen a single projection of wins or the revenue implications or risk assessment.

The expectation and frustration you describe is completely reasonable and I join you in that frustration. We could have had Nola and Benintendi. We have not made any trades like Cleveland did to put together their staff. We have sucked in general at developing ML talent and it would appear we were significantly behind in developing an analytics team. This frustration explains why people want the team to go all in. It does not explain why many posters are at a loss as to why the FO would not just take a leap of faith. I responded to a very specific exasperation voiced here by many that the team refuses to just go all-in, especially in terms of payroll. That disconnect exists because fans place zero value on financial performance and the primary goal of any business is financial performance. It's that simple. From a business point of view it makes far more sense to at least get a couple months into next season before making a big trade. It probably makes more sense in terms of building a winner. There are many variables beyond Buxton/Sano but even if it were just those two, it might make the most sense to trade for a replacement for one of them. It certainly does not make sense to do that now.

I am going to provide a theory as to why this alludes many. There is no disrespect intended here. It’s purely an observation. Fans could care less about profitability and profitability is right at the top of the list of a GM's responsibilities. Many even think the business that is the Minnesota Twins owes it to the fans to disregard profitability. This is going to create a disconnect. It's also not a unique concept to pro sports. I doubt any of us cares if Cub Foods or the dealership where we buy our car or any other business maintains a healthy profit. As a matter of fact, virtually nobody would feel bad if the car dealer added up their costs incorrectly and sold them a car a cost. The common position here is “what if Sano and Buxton are good” It also possible we could construct a good BP and get a middle infielder and maybe add some SP. Why wouldn’t the Twins max payroll and perhaps trade away some prospects too? Why take a chance we could miss an opportunity? The answer is because if they fail, they will recover only a small portion of the incremental $40-50 or even $60M many here expect them to spend. (See Baltimore / Texas / Detroit) I don’t think anyone here is so naïve as to think the odds of success are high. Therefore, if you say this position eludes you, you are saying you can’t understand why the Twins would not invest 10s or millions with a low probability of success. I would absolutely love it if the Twins did not care about profitability but the reasons they don’t manage the business certainly don’t elude me.

Tampa's revenue has increased steadily for the past 15-20 years. However, making it to the world series in 2008 had minimal impact on revenue. Seems to me they understand how to run their business just fine. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196686/revenue-of-the-tampa-bay-rays-since-2006/

You did not even remotely address the three points made. Are those points true or untrue? Are you really of the opinion revenue level does not matter in a teams willingness to part with top prospects? Is what I wrote about the Dodgers and Yankees inaccurate? Is the Twins competitive position even close to that of the teams that have traded top prospects in the past few years? Is Seattle not tearing down an 89 win team? Lots of questions for you to address directly and you elect to respond with an answer that completely neglects all of them.

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League. There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success.

I don’t think we can make this type of blank statement. For starters, “in contention” is a relative term and a team’s willingness to part with prospects (defined as top prospects) depends on their relative position in terms of contention. Obviously, the Red Sox, Yankees, Astros, Athletics, Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Brewers and Cubs are in a window of contention. Several other teams are relative close but teams like the mariners are opting to tear down. Chicago tore down with a more proven roster than the Twins have now and they had a legit ace with 3 years of control You also have to consider the revenue of any given team. The lower the revenue the more necessary it is to retain low cost talent. Will, Tampa, a 90 win team, be willing to trade away top prospects? Very doubtful. When have they EVER? They never do purely from a business requirement prospective. Oakland and Tampa have generally traded away established talent, even top talent (Price) because of their need for low cost talent. Even the highest revenue teams have been very reluctant to trade top prospects. Theo Epstein was unwilling to trade Bellinger / Buehler / Urias etc. and he has been quite consistent in his unwillingness to trade top prospects even though they are clearly in contention. How about the Yankees? Were they willing to deal Sanchez when they had an established veteran? Were they willing to deal Severino? No, The Yankees have not been inclined to give up elite prospects. They have actually benefited more from trading for prospects than trading away prospects. Stanton did not cost elite prospects because of the salary attached to Stanton. Sheffield is an exception and the circumstances are extreme. They have assembled a 100 win team but need SP if they are going to have a chance to win their division and compete deep into the playoffs. Boston is the one team that has ponied up top prospects but of course they were able to do this because they were stacked with young talent and also able to spend $200M+ in payroll. They are also in a position to sustain a team that is among the most dominant in MLB history. That is a mile away from the Twins situation. Three points come to mind when looking at the trends around the league. 1) Even very rich teams that are clearly in contention are very reluctant to give up top talent. History is very clear in this matter. 2) 2) Below average revenue teams are even less inclined and teams that are not probable contenders also are much less inclined to trade top prospects. 3) The Twin’s scenario is not remotely in a similar scenario to the teams that have traded top prospects. Those teams are top contenders and we are a relative long shot. Low cost players are more important to a team with the twin’s revenue and we are a long way from comparable in terms of being an established contender.

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high.

Cleveland put together an entire staff without doing either. St. Louis did it when they were on top. The Mets did it and so have many others. Having said this, I think Syndergaard is exactly the kind of guy you trade for because he is elite and in his prime. He is that final piece that changes the power rankings among contenders. The problem is we are not among the contenders, not even close unless, and he won't get us close. The scenario that gets us close goes like this. Two guys that have never sustained elite play will do so now. Why? Because we have no chance if they don't. Then, we magically put together a BP representative of a winner. How? Buy elite RPs. What is the track record of these elite RPs. Looking at history and the FAs available, one would have to conclude that is highly speculative. Not to mention, the only way any of them come here is if we pay an even more obscene amount than the market price is right now. Then, we will have to assume we get the Rosario of the 1st half not the Rosario that have a wRC+ of 64 for the second half. Then, we will need Garver to carry the load a catcher. Then, we need to come up with a 2B Then, we need them all to stay healthy, especially the guy we bet the future on. Then, if all those things come through we have a team on par with Cleveland and Seattle last year. Great, we can come up just short or get waxed in the first round if this scenario with a 5% chance of coming to fruition works out. You are asking Falvey to sign his termination papers.