Major League Ready

You make a good point here. You could make a point that your assertion is why the Mariners opted to rebuild this year as well as Chicago when they traded Sale and others. It's interesting to look at how the true contenders have been built over the past decade. It appears most people just assume big free agents and trades for impact players are the key because recent history does not support that assumption. For all the complaining there should be ample examples of mid market teams building contenders when utilizing premier free agents and trades for established impact players. Lots of noise with no validation. One could make a case that examples like the Red Sox have less validity given their ability to spend. However, I think there is still something to be learned from examples like the Dodgers who tried to buy a team with limited success.They cut around $75M from the 25 man roster in 2017 and put a great team on the field that was deep like the other teams you mentioned. They produced 104 wins. Here are all of the players from the 2017 team with WAR of 2+. Corey Seager - 5.9WAR - Drafted Justin Turner - 5.4 WAR – Never broke 1 WAR before being acquired by the Dodgers Chris Taylor - 4.8 WAR – Had .5 career WAR before being acquired by the Dodgers. Cody Bellinger 4.0 WAR - Drafted Yasiel Puig - 2.9 WAR – International Draft Austin Barnes - 2.5 WAR – Dodgers traded an established player (Dee Gordon) for Barnes Yasmani Grandal - 2.5 WAR – Had a good rookie season (2.4) WAR then .6 WAR in 2013 and 1 WAR in 2014. He was not an established performer after a combined 1.6 WAR in the 2 previous years. Joc Pederson was hurt a lot in 2017 so he did not contribute like he did the 2016 but he too was drafted. Clayton Kershaw - 4.6 WAR - Drafted Kenley Jansen - 3.6 WAR - Drafted Alex Wood - 3.5 – Traded in a 13 player 3 team trade. The Dodgers gave up very little for him. Rich Hill - 2.6 – Signed as a FA in 2017 for 3/48. mid-tier where free agent SPs are concerned. Brandon McCarthy - 2.4 WAR – Freeagent signed for 3/36M Kenta Maeda - 2.0 – International FA - $20M signing fee + 25M over 8 years. The cost including the posting fee is an AAV of 5.625M In summary, 4 of the position players were acquired via trade. All of them fit far better into the unproven category than proven at the time. There was not a single established player acquired via trade. There was also not a single high profile free agent. The 2017 Dodgers team was made-up of players drafted by the Dodgers or acquired as prospects. Just another example of trading established players for prospects being more effective than vice versa. Is there any wonder why the Dodgers have been so ardent about holding on to their prospects in recent years or for that matter why the Twins are not willing to trade our best prospects. The league is adapting.

So, in other words, you can't provide any substantive proof so I will continue to offer anecdotal evidence. There are several examples of playoff teams with equivalent or less evidence over the past few years. The evidence is clear that big dollar free agents and trades have had a minor or in some case no impact. You sure do avoid the facts. Are you also going to debate that all of the ML teams are placing far less importance on big $ free agents or that they are all very reluctant to trade top prospects? BTW ... Morris was signed to a 1 year deal. You sure don't stick to a premise. After absolutely harping on the Twins won't sign multi year deals, you use a 1 year contract as an to support your point. I would add that examples of 25+ years ago is not the best evidence of how to succeed today. The Kansas city example is not great either. They were a better team after shields left and the won the WS without him. Yes, they got Davis but nobody here would have thought that he was an important asset when the trade was made.

Where in my post did I say they did. I said show me examples where the practices you harp on constantly have worked. Actually, what is relevant is the relative success of trading for prospects or unproven MLB talent vs trading for proven talent. What is also relevant is how much of a role higher end free agents of played and how often have they failed vs succeeded. This constant complaint about strategy is never backed with fact. Show me examples. I will give you Milwaukee last year but how they won 96 games with one SP over 2 WAR is beyond me. Show me 78 win teams with equivalent budgets who traded away top prospects. Show me teams with equivalent budgets who have found success signing top free agents, especially after a 78 win season. I have provided list after list of the failures. Show me the successes and we will compare the length of the lists. Trading for prospects or players not yet established at the MLB level has been far more influential than trading for established players, especially outside the top revenue markets.

The fact that the Twins have not succeeded is not in question, not even a little. However, that failure has absolutely nothing to do with best practices or what strategies they should follow going forward. This argument drives me out of my mind. Following less productive strategies because they have failed to execute good strategies is the definition of incompetence. The fact that it is faster would only be relevant if it had an equivalent or even close to equivalent chance of working. There is a reason the entire league is emphasizing drafting and development. There are reasons why you constantly hear team X is interested in player Y but won't part with top prospects. There are reasons why long-term contracts, especially for 30 or 30+ players are being avoided. To ignore all of the trends because we want gratification now is horribly ill-conceived strategy.

I am sure the Brewers will be mentioned as an example and their two most important players were acquired by trade and free agency. They are an example of trades/FA working but a weird one. They only had 2 pitchers over 2 WAR and one was a RP. He was drafted. The only SP with 2+WAR was Chacin and he is the type of signing being hated on here. They only had four 2WAR+ position players of which Yehlich and Cane led the way. It yielded 96 wins last year but I am not sure how.

I would not be fair of me to ask for examples of teams where trades for established players and high end free agent acquisition were big contributors without offering an example of teams who's success had little or nothing to do with this type of acquisition. In other words, teams that have proven that the opposite of what is being promoted here is the best path to success. Atlanta had 4 position players at 3 WAR or higher but they had Inciarte at 2.9 so I will include him. Freddie Freeman - 5.2 WAR – Drafted by the A’s with the 78th pick. Ozzie Albies- 3.8 WAR - Signed as an Int free agent for $350K. Ronald Acuna - 3.7 WAR - Signed as an Int free agent for $350K. Johan Camargo - 3.3 WAR – Signed as an Int free agent for $42K. Ender Inciarte - 2.9 WAR – Acquired by trading away a proven middle of the rotation SP (Miller) The braves also got a top 10 prospect in Danby Swanson. In other words, the exact opposite approach being supported by many here. The Brave’s position players are a result of good drafting and International signings. None of the International draftees were particularly high profile. The total expenditure for all three was just under $500K They had 1 good SP and two decent SPs. Their best SP (Mike Foltynewicz) was acquired by trading away an established player (Gattis) when Foltynewicz had not yet established himself at the MLB level. He finally stepped up in 2018. Their 2nd best SP was Sanchez who the Twins cut. He was not great and certainly is not the type of difference maker acquisition being called for here. The other Sp to log decent innings was Sean Newcomb who the A’s traded Andrelton Simmons to acquire. Again the opposite practice being called for here by many. The Braves roster was built trading away established talent for prospects or MLB players that have never deliver a 3 WAR season. There are no big $ free agents or high $ International signings. None. I will be happy to offer another if someone can give an example of a successful team with similar financial resource that utilized the practices suggested here. I am not even sure if you could fund an example of any team with similar revenue that trade away top 50 prospects after a season under 500.

If all of you who insist the best path to winning for a mid-market team is through trading prospects for established players or spending on "higher-end" free agents. There should be several examples of teams that have executed this strategy. Show us the examples. It should be easy. If there are not an ample number of examples, you are insisting your conclusion is far better than the "geniuses" based on your opinion without an supporting evidence. In other words, your opinion is an assumption, not a conclusion reasoned from results (data). Let's make the parameters clear. 1) Teams that provide by far the best data for this exercise are teams with similar or less revenue than the Twins. 2) An established player that is a difference maker has had at least one season of 3 WAR or better. 3) If we are establishing the merit of different strategies, we can't simply count any player acquired through trade. Players acquired as minor league players or before becoming established is the opposite of what is being promoted here. The fact is that there are far more players contributing to successful teams similar to the Twins in revenue that were acquired before becoming establish MLB players. 4) What exactly is a higher-end free agent is hard to quantify but it's not Jed Lowry at 3/24. That too is the opposite of what is being promoted here. I would define higher-end (difference maker) MLB free agents as those who sign for more than $50M or RPs @ 8M AAV but there is certainly room for interpretation. 5) We are interested in how the players who produced were acquired not the roster in general. It makes no sense to count roster spots when the core point is the most productive players. Let's see the examples of 90+ win teams with equivalent or less revenue built on the practices being promoted here. Then, let's compare that list to the list of similar teams where there are no such examples or where players acquired in this way had a modest degree of impact on overall success. What if your assumptions are not supported by history. Could it be you are insisting on practices that all of the other similar teams have determined are poor practices. I don't care for the Perez trade either but that's not all that relevant to relative merit of a mid market team building through free agency and trading key prospects. The notion we are going to trade excess mid level prospects for difference makers is incredibly naive.

No problem, I just wondered if I missed something that tied this together.

Is it relevant how the most productive players were acquired vs the lower performers on the roster. What counts is the difference makers right? It would be far more meaningful if the acquisition method for the top 10 most valuable players was measured or all of the players with a given level of WAR. It also makes no sense to lump all trades together. Were they acquired as minor league players or before they were established ML players or were they established ML players. One strategy is the antithesis or the other. I posted an analysis of the players from the mid market teams who made the playoffs last year. The vast majority of their WAR was from players who were drafted or acquired before becoming established MLB players.

Did you mean to quote a different post? My post had literally nothing to do with how any individual free agent is valued or the amount of the contract they sign so I am assuming you just clicked on the wrong post when you quoted.

Why are you using average payroll as a measure of how much the Twins should be expected to spend? Do you understand why there is a variance in MLB payrolls? I am not being facetious as it would appear you have chosen a random measure.

Yes, you have identified where this conversation goes wrong. There is little ambiguity in Payroll Expense or personnel expense. It's reasonable that someone might interpret salaries as meaning salary only without taxes and benefits. If an executive used the term "salaries" in a summary context and I could not clarify, I would assume he/she meant salary + benefits because these discussions are virtually always in that context. It's a meaningless discussion if part of the information is omitted. "Salaries" is not a term generally used by executives or financial analysts. They use "payroll" or "personnel costs" or even "salary + benefits". It would be interesting to see the exact quote but even if someone used the term salaries, I would assume any Twins executive meant salary + benefits because it makes no sense to exclude a portion of the expense.

It would be a very rare exception when an executive referencing personnel costs or payroll does not mean salary + taxes and benefits. I am actually being generous when a say a rare exception. I have never had a client at the executive level that disregarded taxes and benefits when referencing personnel costs. Many organizations refer to this as fully loaded costs. Businesses don't ignore costs.

Thanks for providing that link. I could not find any accounting for benefits. The league average for salaries (not payroll attributed to players) is about 45% of revenue and 14.4M is roughly 5.3% of total average salary. Of course, the combined cost equates to roughly 50% of revenue. I would expect teams with less than average revenue to spend a slightly lower percentage because the other operating costs should be a lower percentage of gross revenue for higher income teams.

You are correct (IMO) that there is no way we can know if the BAMtech money was the sole driver the Twins increasing payroll. It would appear based on other team's payroll's not going up incrementally that many teams did not spend it just because they had a windfall last year. However, the fact that among there major signings, one was a 1 year term and two had 2nd year options, it would be reasonable to suggest the one-time infusion influenced their approach. Concluding it was the sole reason would be a stretch.

For starters, you are clinging to a soundbite because it supports your preferred narrative. I would bet you would not cling to this soundbite if you did not like the number they cited. Had they said 40%, I bet you would have utilized the same hard facts I did to substantiate they could spend more. In other words, you are electing to ignore very obvious and straight forward facts. There is relatively complete data and the analysis is as simple as it gets. So, when I ask you would expect a team to spend equivalent to a team with an incremental $70M in revenue, it is an exceptionally uniformed position to respond because they said so, IMO. This is mind numbingly simple with a minimal degree of objectivity applied. Secondly, you don’t even understand that payroll costs does NOT equal salary. Payroll costs consist of Salary + benefits. Players get lifetime health care and retirement benefits. According to the article below they are also employees as opposed to independent contractors which means the team also pays payroll taxes. If someone can provide evidence the teams don’t contribute to payroll taxes that would mitigate the impact but they are employees according to this article. https://thecomeback.com/nfl/professional-athletes-employees-lawmakers-not-want-treat-way.html

I too am not sure of the right answer. I posted the WAR produced by top free agent relievers and the assumption that they are high floor or high probability is not something supported by history. As fans, we naturally gravitate to supporting the acquisition of guys that have been very successful. The problem, especially whit BP arms is that correlation is not very strong.

Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable expectation if you utilize an undefined soundbite as rationalization instead of extremely straight forward financial parameters. The team produces $70M less than average in revenue. I would love to hear your logic as to why it is reasonable the spend the same amount as a team with an incremental $70M. Of course, the I would love to hear part was rhetorical because the only possible rational explanation would be they spend $70 less on other operating expenses which we know is not even close to accurate. This type of bury your head in the sand / ignore the hard facts position makes these discussions hard to take seriously.

It makes very little sense to use average payroll in setting expectations for this team. Their revenue is $70M less than average. Why would we expect their spending to be the same as teams with an incremental $50M in revenue. MLB revenue eclipsed 10B which is 333M/yr average revenue. The twins are around $260M or 78%. Therefore if the spend on par with other teams as a percentage, they would spend 78% of $135M or roughly $105M.

You are forgetting about Cruz.

Do you send Cave down in this scenario and use Gonzalez as the 4th outfielder? I would think they would be much more likely to cut Austin, keep Cave and they would need to cut Adrianza as well.

Are you saying they should get a back-up 3B that could come close to what is expected of Sano? Can you name an example that would be available? I will also need some help understanding how these changes will add 14 wins from 500 to 95 wins. Given we are not projecting replacement level from Sano, or the 5th starter, I would say those players would have to project at 17-18 WAR. I would love to hear your plan to accomplish this feat.

Atlanta and Oakland did a great job but their strategies were also pretty much the exact opposite of what is being endorsed here. They did not trade away any top prospects and they did not sign any high profile FAs. The A’s free agent acquisitions were basically the type of acquisitions that people complain about here. The A’s had 5 position players at 3WAR or better. Matt Chapman - 6.5 WAR – A’s 1st round pick in 2014. Jed Lowrie - 4.9 – WAR – I think it’s fair to say Lowrie would have been categorized here as a meh acquisition had the Twins acquired him when the Astros signed him for 3/23 in 2015. Marcus Semien – 3.7 WAR - Acquired from the White Sox after seasons with Chicago and a cumulative WAR of .7. Matt Olson - 3.4 WAR - Drafted with the 47th pick in 2012 Stephen Piscotty - 3.0 WAR - Acquired from the cardinals after his 1st year of service where he had .4 WAR The A’s had one SPs that delivered 160 innings. That was Menea who was acquired as a prospect from KC. Their next best SP was Cahill who signed a 1 year deal for 1.5M which would have definitely been characterized as dumpster diving. Their highest WAR pitcher was actually a RP (Theinen) who was acquired for Sean Doolittle and Ryan Madson. Theinen was an average RP before they acquired him. There is not a single high profile free agent nor did they trade any prospects of note. They built a contender by drafting and making trades for players as prospects or before they broke out. Atlanta had 4 position players at 3 WAR or higher but they had Inciarte at 2.9 so I will include him. Freddie Freeman - 5.2 WAR – Drafted by the A’s with the 78th pick. Ozzie Albies - 3.8 WAR - Signed as an Int free agent for $350K. Ronald Acuna - 3.7 WAR - Signed as an Int free agent for $350K. Johan Camargo - 3.3 WAR – Signed as an Int free agent for $42K. Ender Inciarte - 2.9 WAR – Acquired by trading away a proven middle of the rotation SP (Miller) The braves also got a top 10 prospect in Danby Swanson. In other words, the exact opposite approach being supported by many here. The Brave’s position players are a result of good drafting and International signings. None of the International draftees were particularly high profile. The total expenditure for all three was just under $500K They had 1 good SP and two decent SPs. Their best SP (Mike Foltynewicz) was acquired by trading away an established player (Gattis) when Foltynewicz had not yet established himself at the MLB level. He finally stepped up in 2018. Their 2nd best SP was Sanchez who the Twins cut. He was not great and certainly is not the type of difference maker acquisition being called for here. The other Sp to log decent innings was Sean Newcomb who the A’s traded Andrelton Simmons to acquire. Again the opposite practice being called for here by many. The Braves roster was built trading away established talent. There are no big $ free agents or high $ International signings. Tampa’s top 5 position players ( Wendle / Smith / Duffey / Robertson / Cron ) were all acquired before becoming established ML players. They only have 3 pitchers who stand out. Where pitching is concerned, they drafted Snell with the 52nd overall pick. Alvarado was signed as an international free agent at 16 y/o. (cant find the amount). Chris Archer was traded for when he was in AA for Matt Garza The brewers are much the same as Atlanta and Oakland and Tampa with the exception of the Yehlich trade. There is a very consistent theme among these teams. They drafted well and traded established players for young players as prospects or before they became established. None of these teams have spent for high profile FAs. It makes absolutely no sense to hold these franchises up as examples while promoting the practice of signing high dollar free agents and trading away prospects. The franchises are good examples of what the Twins SHOULD do. Yet many people seem to ignore how they built these teams and even go so far as to promote practices that are basically the antithesis of how these teams were built.

They are predicted for 83 wins. Harper would not be taking the place of a replacement level player. He had an enormous year in 2015 with 9.3 WAR in 2015 but he has averaged 3.77 WAR over the last 3 years since that huge season. He would not add 6 or 7 WAR. More like 2 and perhaps less if Kepler breaks-out as predicted. As the data above has shown, the highest AAV free agent RPs have produced 1 WAR on average so your projection is very optimistic. Realmuto would already be in Houston or LA if Miami was willing to take the type of package you suggest. It's well-documented their ask is ridiculous. Is that the type of deals you want the FO to make?

I agree WAR is a bit iffy but it’s probably the best summary data we have. It should also be noted this is not anecdotal and the data does provide some insight . There is 2 years WAR for everyone but Davis and this data represents the entire population with the entire population being defined as the top AAV guys. Of course, there is some subjectivity as to where to cut off the top AAV. There are some reasonable takeaways. The context of the discussion here is putting difference makers on the roster. The top RPs we primarily not the highest paid RPs. Therefore, to insist the only or even best route is to sign the top $ guys is to ignore history (data). The data also shows the tenuous nature of RPs which in itself calls into question the wisdom of a mid-market team spending for multiple high $ BP arms. The argument it will go unspent is short-sighted. Yes, it might go unspent this year but the league demonstrates a consistent pattern of spending. That pattern is max the budget when within a window of contention. We will get there if the team comes together and we spend the $30-40M of remaining budget wisely. If we spend the lion’s share on a couple RPs and they perform as history suggests, we add a 2-3 wins and the team is still considerably short of the other playoff-teams.