Major League Ready

I would rather have him than any of the FAs available so it's hard to be too disappointed. He is in his prime and last year was his 1st season with 500ABs. It's reasonable to hope for another uptick but I would be satisfied with what he did last year.

I am not sure of the definition of top of line talent but here is a list of the bottom half of MLB in terms of revenue. How many top of the line FAs have these teams signed in say the last 5 years which would equate to 80 years for a single team. The Dbacks signed Greinke, so there is one. Of course, they had just signed a 1.5B TV contract but let's ignore that for this exercise. They did manage to get to the playoffs one year and had a 500 record during Greinke's tenure and now he is a detriment for the next 3 years but we can ignore that too. Show me examples of "top of the line" FAs have these teams signed over the past 5 years. That would indicate to me that it is a viable strategy and it's the Twins organization that is the problem. We need to define top of the line. I take that to mean the top 3-5 in total contract dollars each year. Oakland Athletics .... $210 Miami Marlins .......... $219 Tampa Bay Rays ..... $219 Cincinnati Reds ....... $243 Kansas City ............. $245 Baltimore Orioles ..... $252 Milwaukee Brewers .. $255 Az Diamondbacks .... $258 Pittsburgh Pirates .... $258 Minnesota Twins ...... $261 Chic White Sox ........ $266 Colorado Rockies .... $266 San Diego Padres ... $266 Toronto Blue Jays .... $274 Detroit Tigers ........... $277 Cleveland Indians .... $284

Even the largest markets have recognized the need to build from the farm system and develop players. The fact the Twins have not done a good job of this has absolutely nothing to do with if it is the solution. Do you realize you are suggesting we pursue less effective practices because we did a poor job executing fundamentally better practices. How about if we get better at the most effective practices.

We could go after Donaldson but there simply are not real good MI or 1B options that can be bought. Free agent SP has not been a good bet either. There were several 5+ year contracts in 2016. None of them have been good and now we are going into the years likely to be even less productive. Price / Age 30 / 7-217 / 4.5 / 1.6 / 2.7 for a total WAR of 8.8 and which is $10.23M/WAR Greinke / Age 32 / 6-206.5 / 2.2 / 5.1 / 3.5 for a total 10.8 which is $9.72M/WAR Cueto / Age 30 / 6/130 / 5.5 / 1.2 / .2 for a total of 6.9 WAR which is $12.6M/WAR Zimmerman / Age 30 / 1.3 / 1.0 .9 for a total of 3.2 which is $18.75M/WAR Samardzia / Age 30 / 5-90 / 2.6 / 3.8 / -.2 for a total of 6.2 which is $8.7M/WAR Wei-Yin Chen / Age 31 / 5-80 / .9 / .5 / 1.2 for a total of 2.6 which is $11.8M/WAR Leake / Age 28 / 5-80 /2.5 / 3.2 / 2.3 for a total of 8 which is $5.5M WAR Kennedy / Age 31 / 5-70 / 1.6 / -.2 / 1.0 for a total of 2.4 which is $15.4M/WAR

Unless I misunderstand what you are trying to advocate, you would only have 10 roster spots for pitchers, not to mention pretty suspect defense.

Actually, you and I consistently talk about two different things. In this case, I was talking about the need to build analytics and other management personnel as well as the programs and practices that improve drafting and development. Your focus is always right now as in the case of selling at the deadline last year or now putting the best team possible on the field next year regardless of if that team is actually a contender or if it will likely cost us in the future. The other way in which I have consistently defined contender of late is in the context of a roster that can compete with not just Houston but NY, and Boston. Are you saying we don't have comparable players to compete because that is inconsistent with the whole Lamborghini kick you were on. Everyone does a great job of providing statistics and fact based comparisons of players. Not one person has provided any measure or projection of how many wins should be expected from any given blueprint. Is that how businesses operate? Here is a plan, not sure if it gets us to our goal but let's drop $75M and hope for the best. Of course not which brings us to the real issue. Many here just can't except the MN Twins baseball team is a business. Most everyone understands it's a business for the players and they will act accordingly. Somehow that concept is absolutely lost on many where the team is concerned.

I made a different presumption. I presumed that he meant they would build the analytics department on par with the best in MLB. That they would overhaul our inept scouting and drafting practices that have been part of why we have not been competitive. I presumed it meant they would adopt new development programs and practices that would get the most out of the good prospects resulting from better drafting practices. I presumed it meant they would utilize all the above to make better trades (see Cleveland). Apparently, you presumed it meant they would be magically build a team like Houston. I presumed it meant they would build the programs and practices responsible for Houston’s success.

I have highlighted the key points where we differ at least to a degree. It's one thing, if there was just one great team where we did compare on paper. There are three where we are not remotely close and a handful that are far better. Would we satisfied with the team signing FAs or trading for players that are not very good on paper because they believed in them? Of course not. The response to that type of signing and explanation would be draw extremely negative responses here so we can't use that logic to state we are ready to make a run and should spend and trade accordingly. Actually by opinion sways on just how far away we are from being a contender. I think we differ in distance as much as we do probability. The existing players could provide the core to build a contender. However, when I compare our team to the contenders, Boston, NY, and Houston has proven players 1-9 and much better pitching than us. We have 2 proven SPs in Berrios and Gibson and 1 really good RP in Rogers. We just one offensive player that is considered proven (Rosario) that matches up to the top 4,5, even six position players on the true contenders. Our best offensive player (Rosario) was absolutely inept the 2nd half of the season. It was not just a slump. Pitchers are exploiting his horrible plate discipline. Point being, even our best offensive player is a question mark. We have a bunch of guys who might be good. We would need several players to really step up and all of the new acquisitions to work out. I think we would agree the probability of that happening is very low. That does not in any way suggest you just wait and see but it should determine how you go about getting better. For example, signing or trading for 35 y/o SPs (Greinke) who will block the guys we need long-term and will also with near certainty decline and absorb 25M or more. I am not even sure of your position on Greinke. I am just using him as an example.

Is the goal to win the division or build a contender? You have to ask yourself why should we aspire to get to Cleveland's position when they are electing to tear it down. Their revenue generating capacity is about the sames as our so it's a good comparison.

I would have no problem with these signing with perhaps the exception of Miller because I don't know how realistic it is to expect him to come back to close to his past performance. If Buxton and Sano both bounce back and all 4 FAs perform at out above expectation these adds would get us close to the top teams. The Depth Charts projection is 10.1 wins. Of course, this would be the gain if they were replacing replacement level players but that’s not the case. It's a net add of 5-6 wins? That gets us to 82 wins so we would need another 12-14 wins from Buxton/Sano and the other positions combined. The odds of that all working out are about the same as us getting Machado but it would not hurt us unless we are paying #35M/tr Machado until he is 38. Machado is a great long-term add and Marwin's flexibility should be an asset for as long as he is here. Murphy is a good 2 year placeholder. I see Miller as a risk but I don't have enough info to have a strong opinion. 5.2 Machado 1.7 Gonzalez 2.5 Murphy 0.7 Miller ---- 10.1

Apple made 48B in 2017 (the Twins made $23M) By your logic Apple should give $100B worth of product to their customers.What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?

If you reach a bit you could make that inference but that is not remotely the point being made here. The point is that 10M/WAR free agents are counterproductive to building a contender for teams with less than average revenue. That pointed was highlighted by the fact I provided mathematical proof. I would think people would either contest the math or acknowledge the production/dollar spent is crucial to below average revenue teams building a contender. Even the large market teams have come to appreciate the importance but as I have shown in the previous post it’s not as critical to teams with the highest revenue.. This has been a huge point of contention here. Most will just ignore the proof I just offered and continue to complain about the organization won’t do something because they are cheap when the motivation is much more likely they believe for good reason the move would be counterproductive. Instead of refuting the proof or acknowledging the conclusion on what was clearly the point you jumped to the conclusion that I “don't think they should try to compete next year?” I wrote show me a scenario where this is achieved using $10M/WAR free agents which is completely consistent with the main point I just described. The fact that I reject a specific strategy / approach does not mean I reject the objective of trying to win. The reference to other teams retooling was defining “win” and setting the bar for # of wins because a 90 win team is not really a contender and I am not interested in a plan where the likely outcome is get our a$$e$ kicked in the playoffs. Every blueprint presented here makes us better but none of them (including the $150M plan) construct a team that is realistically close to Boston / Houston / NY. Part of the point is that if we can’t construct a true contender, what’s the difference between 86 and 88 or even 90 wins. I certainly am not trading any good prospects to get from 84 to 87 wins. I will trade them when I get to 87 wins (see Milwaukee)

I would normally agree, Mike. However, most of the players receiving extension offers are players with a higher probability of success. Buxton is a bit of a unique case. I think most of us believe he can still be a superstar but there is a also a pretty significant chance he is a 4th outfielder. It's an unusually uncertain case with a wide differential between floor and ceiling. Turning down $40 or 50M would be quite gutsy as of today. It would be an extremely aggressive play on the Twins part.

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless. My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players. The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis. If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M.

Would LOVE to compare resumes.

What was I thinking ... Had they only signed Darvish and Hosmer instead of Lynn and Morrison.

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.