Major League Ready

I am prioritizing a front of the rotation FA starting Pitcher. Very rough estimate … That addition and the increases due current players (contractually & arbitration) will be around $40M. Therefore, the retention of / Odorizzi / Schoop and a fifth starter will have to come from an increase in payroll. (rough estimate $35M). We can’t have it all so what is the best allocation of resources. I think the addition of a Bumgardner or Cole makes for a much better playoff team. The difference of Schoop vs Arraez or Gordon is probably 12M and the difference. That money is better spent in a another starter or retaining both Gibson and Odorizzi as opposed to keeping just one, IMO. The same could be said for the difference between one of our prospects vs a free agent firth starter.

Reed 8.5 / Hughes 5,950 / Morrison 1M / Santana 1M so 16,450,000 from players they have cut. Catro 8.0M / Pineda 8.0M and Pineda 7.5M = 39.95M

Cron is not a free agent until 2021 so Schoop is the only position player in question. They will shed $40M between Schoop / Reed / Castro / Hughes Santana and Morrison. That allows for them to easily retain Odorizzi and/or Gibson. Best case scenario, retain one of Odorizzi / Gibson and sign a front of the rotation FA. We are waaaaay more attractive to a FA pitcher now. They also have Mejia and a few prospects (Stewart / Gonsalves / Smeltzer) that can fill Pineda’s departure. Of course, we have quite a few guys that will get bumps next year but revenue should also be up given the improved product and excitement around this team.

How about 30 HRs the rest of the way?

They can only keep him on a rehab assignment for 20 days total.

I have always interpreted the issues with Sano's to be things that would derail his own development. I never thought he had a negative impact on anyone but himself. Personally, I pray he comes back and delivers on that enormous potential. This line-up would be ridiculous if he can deliver on that enormous potential.

I don't see them rushing to make changes. Cleveland's loss of Kluber and their lack of depth offensively positions the Twins to take a little time to determine exactly what they need to enhance the team's ability to win playoff series. That's most likely a late inning reliever and the supply will grow as the deadline nears. It also makes sense to look at assess Perez over another 8-10 starts. Has he really become a dominant starting SP or does he have weaknesses the rest of the league will exploit. Has Gibson become or is he becoming the guy you want on the mound in the playoff's. The required additions to aid a playoff run will be more evident in 10 weeks regardless of the answer to these questions. There will also be greater supply of available talent in 8-10 weeks. Therefore, they are not going to make decisions now unless they somehow find a great value. For example, a deal with Kimbrel they like would/could trigger a move now..

So is Guerrero Jr. and the expectation for him is instant success. Of course, he is just getting started but his wRC+ so far is 22.

Orioles are in first position for waiver claims, right?

I did not mean to dismiss the differences. My point was that employees don't get paid more in any other industry based on revenue growth which some contend they are entitled. Let's not forget the players portion is guaranteed and the premise of splitting proceeds is always done before covering operating cost. How does that make sense. If we look at Forbes and Statistica for 2017 (2018 N/A yet) the Twins had 261M in revenue, 108M in player payroll, and $23M in profit. Therefore, operating costs were roughly $130M which means the players portion of revenue after cost 82.4% and ownership's retained 17.6% of the available funds. That seems like a pretty good portion going to players does it not? I would add that the current generation of players did not create this massive opportunity. To say they are responsible for this revenue and therefore deserve this massive payday fails to recognize the are the recipients of very good fortune of which they did not create.

Name another industry where the employees demand guaranteed contracts and an equal cut of the revenue. Of course the equal cut premise makes no sense because the players are not paying the operating costs. If the owners and players split net operating income equally the players would be in for a huge compensation cut. Let's keep this in perspective. Teams are still willing to pay very high AAVs and they are willing to pay that for as long as the player remains productive. The players are stomping their feet because because they want extremely high AAVs regardless of if they perform and they want contracts that give them a couiple of years of additional compensation when they almost certainly will not earn it. Again, a ludicrous concept in any other form of business. I find it difficult to support the premise hundreds of millions is not enough and top players should get an extra $40, 50, etc million after they no longer perform at a high level. In all likelihood the money will be spent, it will just be redistributed to players who's production warrants the compensation.

Some fans obviously think that baseball as an industry should not be subject to free market principals. Of course, had that been the case, nobody would have funded this league and we would not have baseball as we know it today. Player compensation was adequate to attract all of the top talent and the public certainly did not think they were underpaid. Had player compensation remained commensurate with 1969 levels, players would earn roughly $161,000 on average. Of course, they make 25 times that amount. I would say the industry has been incredibly kind to MLB players. Too bad minor league players have not gotten a small piece of the pie. To be fair, the Nippon league pays about $600K/year on average so $161,000 would not be adequate to retain players. However, if they player compensation was one-quarter of today’s rate, I doubt the supply would be impacted. What if at the end of this CBA the owners said we believe all of the teams that got stadium money should repay it. So, the league is going to take 10% of the revenue from each team and distribute it the states that funded stadiums. That would equate to about 1.3M per player on average. In other words, player compensation would have to drop to an average about $3M/player. Now that would be fair. The players would scream bloody murder but the public paying for stadiums so that players can be paid hundreds of millions is ludicrous. Now what if the owners said we think MLB should help the homeless, veterans, battered women, etc and we are going to distribute another $750M or roughly $1M per player to help these people in needs. Now the average salary is $2M. Do we lose any players because they are unwilling to work for an average of $2M/annually?

You apparently did not understand the point. Microsoft and several other companies grew as much or more than MLB. Compensation to their employees did not grow at 7X the adjusted rate of inflation. Businesses don't pay more or less because of changes in revenue. They pay an amount sufficient to attract and retain employees. Would MLB players go do something else if the average comp was 2.2 instead of 4.4M annually?

Does your employer increase wages in parallel to growth in profit? Employers pay an amount that is sufficient to attract people over other options and retain them. The next best option to MLB is the Nippon league at about 1/10 of MLB. You are expecting MLB to operate differently than every other business. Employees are not entitled to a share of the profits in any other industry.

You really think the teams, the league and leadership / promotion of the game had nothing to do with the success of this industry? You live in a very one-sided world.

I can appreciate shortening the years of control would be good for the players but I am quite concerned it would be bad for the game and really bad for small markets. The big markets have easily double the spending capacity for players as compared to small markets. What's the effect on mid and small markets when they lose key players a year earlier? I would start with a raise to MiLB players. Talk about not getting a piece of the pie ... MLB player salaries have grown at roughly 7 times the adjusted rate of inflation. They have done extremely well and MiLB players work for peanuts. Next raise MLB minimums to something like 750K / 1M in the first two years and start arbitration a year earlier.

Front loading the contract basically negates the benefit of the two option years.

The owners could pay an 1/4 of what they do now and lose 1% of the available players. Do you think players would not work for an average of $1M/year. There highest paid alternative outside of MLB is the Nippon league which is about an 1/8 of what they get paid now. The average pay of MLB players has grown at 7X the adjusted rate of inflation in the last 25 years and more than that if you go back further. I would say MLB players have done great and let's not forget that both sides continue to allow MiLB players to work for peanuts. They are all (players and owners) greedy bastards.

You need to read more carefully. Carry over has nothing to do with the point. There are other issue with your post but the most meaningful is that those of you who take this position don't seem to understand such a model would actually put below average revenue teams at an even bigger disadvantage. The only thing that would change under your proposed operating model is the players would make even more and teams with less than average income would have an even larger disadvantage because the large market teams make considerably more profit which when redistributed would obviously create an even bigger disparity in payroll expenditures.

Two things. The construction of Atlanta, Colorado, Tampa, Oakland in terms of impact players (3WAR or higher) is absolutely dominated by players that were drafted or acquired in trade before becoming established. Obviously, supplementing though any other means is advisable but the impact of trades for established players or FAs has been very modest. The point is the constant complaining about a practice with modest impact is not exactly enlightened. Things that really matter get a fraction of the attention. The other thing is timing. You and others always insist it must be done NOW. Most fans refuse to see this through the lens of a business. There are 4 potential future states. 1) The FA pans out and the rest of the team produces at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player. 2) The FA pans out but the rest of the team does not produce at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player. 3) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team produces at a high level. 4) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team also fails. The reason teams wait until they have significant confidence is that the odds of #1 are probably 2:1 against for just the first part of the scenario that the player performs at a high level. Their willingness to take those odds is going to be very low if the odds of the 2nd part of that scenario are not high. If the odds of part 1 are .333 and the odds of part 2 are .333, the overall odds of success are 11%. .333 is probably optimistic in terms of the rest of this team. Business don’t spend 10s of millions on those odds. It’s bad from both a business perspective and roster building perspective. The typical response here is so what it’s just money but that does not account for the inability to invest if the remainder of the team improves. In other words, FAs are always a bad bet but a bet that makes much more sense when the team has proven to be ready to contend.

I can't tell you how much I would enjoy meeting you in a board room.

How am I exaggerating? I used hard fact. The very top paid FAs all failed from last year. Is this or is this not accurate. You have tried to make the argument they should build through FA and trading for established players because they have failed at developing talent. In other words, the previous regime failed to successfully implement the practices most likely to succeed so let's take a crack at following a path that is patently proven not to work for teams with average or less revenue. The data is overwhelming in terms of the acquisition model that has produced playoff teams or even 90 win teams like the Rays that did not make the playoffs. You have consistently ignore hard data and focus on anecdotes that might support your unwavering position the answer is spending just as the OP did here when he ignored the fact that the most successful teams in terms of wins increase spent virtually nothing on FAs. I have asked you on several occasions to show me examples of successful teams with average or below average revenue where FAs and/or established high performing players were acquired via trade. If you look at these teams, and I have provided hard fact previously, the majority of the WAR is produced by players acquired as prospects. The number of impact players acquired through trade while still prospects grossly outnumber the players acquired after becoming established. The point being there is a lot of focus and insistence on spending focused practices which history clearly shows to be a bad bet. It's also very obvious that the teams have gained a firm of the relative merit of free building through free agency. Do you suppose it's the league that does not understand or are TDers holding on to some outdated principals?

Just about any team could improve slightly if the standard is replacing the worst player on the team with a high price FA in hindsight. However, the context of your text which prompted by reply was that the Twins could make a significant difference if they were willing to spend a little more and were a little smarter. The examples I provided were the most highly regarded FAs on the market and the same players that many here said were no brainers. I also asked you to define a little and the magnitude of the impact. The facts (history) is quite clear that FA productivity is around 9M/WAR. A little spending is highly unlikely to move the needle anywhere near what the Twins need to succeed. The real disconnect is that fans have absolutely no problem with players treating baseball as a business but many refuse to accept the business that is the Minnesota Twins acting like a business. The fact is that if the Twins spent another $25M on free agents, the odds of them recouping that investment are near zero. The odds of recouping even 25% are less than even. Try going into your CEO’s office and suggesting they make a $25M investment with little chance of recouping even a modest portion of the investment.

That's quite vague. How much is a little and what is your suggestion for smarter? What free agents this year would be smarter? The concensus here seems to be we need to get the really high profile guys. Who should they have got last year. Would they have been smarter if they got Darvish? Would Arietta at $25M for 2 WAR been significant? How about the 3rd highest paid SP (Cobb). Is that the kind of smart move that would have moved the needle. How about the top RP. Would they have been smarter had the signed Davis at $17M/yr to produce .9 WAR. How about the next highest paid RP ( Holland). Would his .3 WAR have made a difference? I know there were some Brandon Morrow supporters here. He was the next highest paid. Was his .6 WAR the solution. How about the highest paid position player. Would our FO been smarter had we signed Hosmer and his negative WAR. I guess you could say they would have been smart to sign Cain but signing a FA OFer when your supposed strength is a young outfield with all kinds of upside would require a crystal ball. EVERY business based on probable ROI. I can't blame them for not investing in the highest price RPs. The success of RPs is volatile. Smarter might be converting starters with a specific profile or targeting multi-inning pitchers, call them what you will. It's very easy to say they should be smarter when the failures outweigh the successes by 2:1 or more.

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting all the Twins need to do is increase revenue by $350M or just spend like teams that produce over twice as much as they do?