Major League Ready

The answer is extremely obvious for anyone who has ever had P&L responsibility of a 9 figure entity. Is it a better business practice to invest 50/60 or 70M on the low probability that the prospects that have struggled becomes stars or do you suppose the people who are investing that money would elect to invest once the prospects are proving to pan out? You know this how any team outside the top 10 in revenue operate so why would you ask such a silly question?

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

You obviously don’t understand the correlation. The Red Sox had a phenomenal 108 win season. What if we were equally as effective per dollar spent? They spent 1.91M/win. Well …. That would equate to 68 wins in a year when the Twins had record spending. What if we were as effective as Colorado or Atlanta. Both examples would equate to 102 wins. How about if our payroll dollar/win was as good as the Brewers. That would have been 137 wins. That sounds great until we put it in the context you used. That being “winning the payroll/win championship”. In that case we win all 162 games. Why does this not interest you, Chief or the people who liked the comment? The necessity for teams with less revenue to produce more wins per payroll dollar is a very simple concept and it is absolute. Why anyone would argue against such a clear cut concept leaves me wondering exactly why. It makes zero sense.

You are making a different argument, Mike. The conversation was conceptual. I said its more important to find guys for $5M/yr that give you 2 WAR than it is to sign a 3.5 WAR guy for $35M. Any plan that produces 1WAR/$10M of payroll is self-defeating for any team other than the highest revenue teams. The Dodgers ? Yankees etc could easily add three such players in addition to the Twins available budget so it's a different equation for high revenue teams. The 7 players were simply a way to get to the same spend. If you prefer a more practical vs conceptual example. How about if we say we sign 3 FAs. One generates .5 WAR the other 2 produce 4 WAR. We have + 1WAR over the Grienke and $20M to spend next year or use for an extension or add two BP arms for $10M each. BTW ... We need a middle infielder, a corner IF and 3 BP pieces would fit. Plus Wouldn't it be great if we could ad this years version of Miles Mikolas. That's 6 players. The point being

He is 21st in wRC+ for players with 1200+ ABs over the past 3 years. That's very good but $35M/year good? Daniel Murphy was 5 pts higher.

No. It's quite suspect and I think that's the general feeling here but it still gets used often because of the summary nature of this measure. It also does not need to be precise in this context. Look down the list any year and the ranking by WAR looks pretty reasonable. In other words, it's hard to justify the gigantic cost and risk associated with this type of contract (see Heyward) for a player that has not ranked as elite in 4 years. It appears to me that one great year gives players a higher profile than 1 great year of performance deserves. Compare Harper's first six years to Albert Pujlos. It's not even close

Let’s say we followed the wishes of many and signed Greinke 3 years ago. Add Mr. Popular (Marwin Gonzalez) and the RPs suggested by Lev. Here is what we can say for sure. Add roughly $65M annually which would max out payroll. In other words, we are not adding anyone for the next 3 years and we would have to replace Gibson at the cost of his final year of arbitration. WAR for these players over the past 3 years ----- Greinke 2.2 / 5.1 / 3.5 for an average of 3.6 ----- Gonzalez .4 / 4 / 1.6 for an average of .8 ----- Allen 1 / 1.5 / 0 for an average of .833 ----- Herrera 2.0 / .1 / .4 ----- Total = 6.07 wins WAR for these players last year was ----- Greinke = 3.5 for an average of 3.6 ----- Gonzalez = 1.6 for an average of .8 ----- Allen = 0 ----- Herrera .4 ----- Total = 4.5 wins Let’s use the last 3 years instead of last year because that’s more optimistic. Let’s assume Greinke does not regress even though that is not consistent with history. Let’s forget Gonzalez is basically replacing Escobar who had two war before the deadline and let’s pretend Greinke replaces a replacement level player even though I am pretty sure Mejia is worth at least 1 WAR. We have a 500 team under this generous scenario with no available payroll for the next 3 years. There is no scenario where paying 10M/WAR is effective. We would need to spend an incremental $200M to field a team reasonably close to the top AL teams. That is the definition of an ineffective plan. Actually, I can make-up a far fetched scenario where we have several prospects play at a very high level on costs controlled contracts and we add once such player. We are a VERY long way from that scenario right now. Another, perhaps simpler way to evaluate this specific year is that we are in need of several players. If we an incremental $70M on two high profile players we pick up 7 war and have some holes to fill. If we spend $35M on 7 players that generaten 2 WAR we pick up 14 (double) WAR and have $40M to spend next year. I think it's pretty clear which approach has more value to any team, especially a mid-market or small market team.

No disagreement here, MIke. My response was targeted specifically at our inability to draft, trade for, and develop SP which is an entirely different point. We need to develop more than one good SP per decade.

Segura has more WAR than Bryce Harper over the past 3 years (11.2 vs 11.8) Brian Dozier had more WAR than both of them (12) Harper had one huge year four years ago(2015) with a WAR of 9.3. Since then he has been good but not great and $300M was not enough? Finding $5M FAs that produce 2 WAR is a lot more important than signing guys that average 3.5 for $35M/year.

We have been less than mediocre developing pitching and that failure has resulted in us fielding teams between mediocre and horrible. We keep looking for the easy road to success. That does not exist for a team with less than average revenue in a geographically undesirable location. Here is a complete list of legit Ace SPs that signed with a team that profiles as stated above. --- Zack Greinke (overlooking of course the geographically undesirable part) Here is a complete list of legit Ace SPs that signed with a team that profiles as stated above that did not sign a billion dollar TV contract the year before. ---

You have provided absolutely no evidence of what level of profit would be produced with $150M payroll for the 25 man roster yet you offer an opinion on viability. All of the data is readily available but you have produced no facts, instead uninformed speculation. Don't try this in the real world. Also, try going into your CEOs office and telling them they should give everybody raises this year to the point of the company being at B/E because they had good profits last year. Let's look at a different way. If a large portion of your income was bonus based would you work for free the year following a great year? Having said this ... if you actually take the time to look through MLB revenue and profit estimates, it does appear teams spend all the way to B/E levels when they truly have a good shot at going deep in the playoffs but within reason. Houston, was the most team in the league when they absolutely sucked. As I recall, their total payroll was under $40M one year. According the report I listed previously, several teams made between 80-100M. Yet, you don't see these teams increasing their payroll by $75M, do we?

There was documentation of financial viability. NONE. The validations was a quote there is no good reason the Twins could not spend $150. If you have had experience, and especially if you have actually been responsible for a $250M P&L you know this would not come close to flying. I have only had 4 positions with full P&L responsibility of $250M or more so that's a small sample but I believe had I presented to the board in this manner, I would have been relieved of my duties within a few days.

Just a guess but I think they probably feel homeless shelters or medical research or battered women's shelters are a better use of their charitable donations as compared to another $20M to get 3 more wins in a season.

I specifically used $150M. $140M might be viable but who knows because there is no attempt to validate the financial viability. The financial part of these discussion do not come remotely close to how these things are actually done in practice. It's fanatical rambling. Go ahead and dream but to put it into a plan in this manner suggests it's reality. If not, it's a bunch of adult spending a lot of time on fantasy. Why is Cleveland pulling back on spending when they are not at the $150M level? Doe sit not make much more sense for Tampa to employ this plan? There payroll is under $100M. These teams are businesses. Nobody blinks when Kershaw is not satisfied with his $300M contract and asks for ore but the teams should operate as a non-profit. ! would be fine with dreaming but it always turns into the problem is the Twins ownership is cheap and what really bugs me is there are many well presented ideas with of statistical support for player performance. When it comes to financial discussion most fall back to to "cheap ownership" with making no effort to actually inform themselves. What we get is "there is no good reason" when the fact is the reason is either not understood or worse yet no attempt has been made to understand.

Yes, this is how businesses are run. The board or ownership asks what is the impact on the bottom line or what will profits be as a result of this plan and the person in a position similar to a MLB GM says "oh is that a concern" I did not see a problem with operating as a non-profit or losing money." Last day on the job. This line of thinking is bury you head in the sand logic / fanaticism because most people with no management experience understand $150M budgets need to be validated. I would hope any of us working for an organization that managed profitability in this fashion would be looking for a new job because any such company has a very short life expectancy.

On what do you base the statement "There is not much reason they couldn't push payroll to $150? In the real world any report of this nature that did not validate such an assumption would have zero credibility. You also have a key assumption of that the Twins outbid the Yankees for Corbin who is from NY and the Yankees have $300M in revenue more than the Twins. It's fantasy baseball at best. The revenue reports for 2018 are not out yet. In 2017 the Twins ranked 21st in revenue with $261M. Whre would you expect a team 21st in revenue to rank. 16th looks quite reasonable https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/ If you look on that list, several of the top teams made 80-100M. The Twins made $23M with a payroll of roughly $20M less than 2018 payroll. It would appear they were willing to push payroll to a level that would assure meager profits in 2018. To say there is no reason they could not push to $150M is uninformed or assumes they should operate as a non-profit.

I am not a Grossman fan and McCutchen was once a MUCH better player than Grossman but check you facts before you make these statements. The player who's September stands out the most is MCCutchen. wRC+ for July / Aug / Sept Grossman --- 116 / 149 / 149 McCutchen --- 96 / 123 / 149 Sure are a lot of people focused on how good players were in the past as opposed to how good they will be in the future. BTW ... Rosario ------- 67 / 75 / 61 and many are sure he is key. Not if he continues to have an absolutely horrible approach.

I don't quite understand all the Grossman hate. I also don't care if they keep him as he certainly has limitations. However, I like to look at the most recent data, in this case the 2nd half numbers. Grossman was the best hitter on the team with a wRC+ of 128. Rosario's wRC+ was 64 for the 2nd half. The only other above average hitters on the team were Garver (118) Austin (112), Polanco (106). Astudillo had a wRC+ of 158 but only 78 ABs. BTW ... Johnny Field's wRC+ for the 2nd half was only 5 points lower than Adam Jones. Let's not go sign guys because they were great in their prime when they already declining. Before anyone turns this into "are you nuts ... Fields VS Jones", that was not even remotely the point.

I don't think you have looked at the production of the "studs" in an objective way. Some of the big name / big spend guys have worked out great. More have been mediocre to downright horrible. The best case scenario with the big dollar guys is you get what you pay for. Over achievement or value is rarely obtained. It does not matter as much if you have the Twins revenue + another $150M to play with but it's a killer for a mid-market team if players with big contracts don't deliver. There are very few that deliver good value over the course of the entire contract. Let's look at some of the studs from the past couple years. Darvish – 6yrs / $126M – WAR of 0 Arietta – 3 yrs / $75M WAR of 2.0 Cobb – 4yrs / $57M – WAR of 1.0 Chapman 5yrs / $86M – Combined WAR of 3.5 for 2017-18. Jansen / 5yrs / $80M – Combined WAR of 4 for 2017-18 (.4 for 2018) Eric Hosmer 8yrs/ $144 – 2018 WAR of -.1 Cespedes – 4yrs / $110M – 2017 WAR of 2.1 2018 – 0 WAR (injured) Desmond – 5 yrs / $70M – Combined WAR of -1.5 for 2017-18 Fowler – 5yrs / $82M – Combined WAR of 1.3 for 2017-18 Let’s not forget the disastrous contracts of Jason Heyward & Chris Davis. Guys like these can really help a team while keeping enough payroll open to keep our core Mikolas – 2yrs / $15.5 - WAR of 4.3 Hill – 4yrs / $48M – Combined WAR of 4.5 for 2017-18 Morton – 2yrs / $14M – WAR of 6.3 over the 2 years (2017-18) Lowrie – 3yrs / $23M - Combined WAR of 8.5 for 2017-18

I meant no slight on Baldelli. The context was meant to be players in general who have a desire to coach/manage. The fact that he is already making an effort demonstrates more willingness to adapt than most MLB coaches. I guess my point is that you would think more coaches would be making the effort. I am sure the Latin layers would appreciate the effort. It's one of those things that help build winning chemistry.

I would think a player with a desire to manage would start learning Spanish during the later part of their career. They have time in the off-season and a fantastic opportunity to practice and learn from their teammates during their final season(s). There is also lots of travel time coaches could use to learn a 2nd language. Obviously, that travel time can be used for other preparation but they could find the time just as many of us have to master additional / incremental skills for our professions.

You have never heard a reference to a players bat not being good enough to play a corner OF spot as an example? Offensive production matter in reference to position. The relevance is that playing at guy with a sub 750 OPS at 1B will put you at a disadvantage against ,ost teams. At least with Mauer we had a great defender. I don't know how good Kepler is at 1B but I doubt he would be anywhere as good as Mauer without a couple years worth of reps. You have lost me here. You start out supporting the Dodgers strategy and now you have come back with it would be a waste of Kepler's athleticism. I agree with the latter but you have contradicted yourself. Regardless, with someone of Bellingers offensive potency, it is possible putting Bellinger at 1B results in the best overall line-up. We are not so fortunate as to have a player with his offensive product where we might have the same situation.

I am sad to say I agree. The core or players I would not trade consists of Berrios Rogers, and Polanco (at 2B). I really value Garver's steady improvement so I am ok with him being considered part of the core. Buxton and Sano have so little value right now that I seriously doubt a deal comes along that would make sense to give up on their upside. If we could get a return representative of the best of Rosario, great. His lack of plate discipline drives me nuts. Aggressive is fine. Astudillo is aggressive but he does not swing at pitches 16 inches off the plate. It does not appear to be not pitch recognition. Therefore, it should be correctable. He should be getting better with experience but it appears to be getting worse.

I am not sure I go along with Rosario being consistent. His OPS was .622 for the 2nd of 2018. He was more consistent in 2017 but the league has figured out they don't need to throw it over the plate. Rosario was among the very worst in all of MLB in terms of swinging at pitches outside the strike zone. He is going to be an elite hitter if he develops plate discipline but I seriously doubt he is ever consistent going forward unless he becomes a more professional hitter. Many of his ABs the 2nd half were absolutely horrible.

The relative merit of following the Dodgers action is not automatic because some famous leaders used this phrase. It's merit is only relevant to how a given player is able to perform when compared to others playing that position. Bellinger has an OPS while playing 1B of 1.081 in 2017 and 946 in 2018. Your example will have merit when Kepler can come anywhere near this level of performance.