Major League Ready

I hope they are out trying to trade some of the guys we have been talking about that need 40 man protection for international dollars. You would think that's feasible given these players are considerably closer to contributing at the ML level and not as big of a crap shoot as 16 y/o international players. It still might not matter. I would have to think NY offers more appeal and more income potential in endorsements.Our hope might be allowing him to DH if NY won't make the same promise.

I am a big proponent of extending our core. However, any plan that start with the assumption all of these players are willing to extend has a very low probability of success. Add to that how inconsistent they have all been and it’s a bad idea in concept. I also think you are light on the dollars and it’s not financially feasible to extend them all at what they are likely to cost. These decisions can be mad over the next couple years and that additional time should facilitate better decisions, especially given none of them has sustained a high level of play. Dozier – Extending Dozier is not where I would invest given the depth we have in high ceiling middle infield prospects. Buxton – We still have no idea if he can hit for more than a 6 week period but I would extend him at this price if he is willing. Sano – Just not a guy I would bet on at this point. Take another year or even two to determine if Sano is a good long-term investment. Rosario – I would sign him for that kind of money in a heartbeat but it will take considerably more. He is a good bet to maintain his offense now that he has improved his plate discipline from horrid to below average. He will be great if he can develop average plate discipline. Kepler – I had a man crush on Kepler but I want to see him bounce back before I invest long-term. Rooker might be a better option than Kepler by 2019. It makes a lot of sense to approach this next year or later unless the terms were very favorable. Berrios – I doubt he signs for this kind of money. Regardless of the exact dollars, I would want option years on any pitcher. History is very clear how risky pitchers are on long-term deals. Polanco is also worthy of consideration. I would be more apt to extend him than Kepler right now which is part of the reason this should be approached over the course of the next couple years. Our payroll is roughly $85M. We can go get Lynn, Cobb or maybe even Darvish and a couple relievers. This would make for a very good team, especially if this core continues to improve in a manner consistent with core players worthy of an extension. Next year we have $44M coming off the books if we don’t pick-up Santana’s option. At that point we are going to be in a much better position to determine where to invest. We will be doing so in a year with an exceptional free agent class. We will have had another year to determine the best extensions candidates and there will more legitimate pitching prospects (SP&BP) reaching ML readiness than we have had in a long time.

We just need to keep in mind the word from which fan is derived. We should not expect that a certain percentage of fans are not going to exhibit cold rational thinking. Along with a few other posters, I posted the reported odds of the Twins making the playoffs shortly after the deadline. Most people have played a little poker in their life. You just don't keep betting on a very low probability hand. Yet, a few people insisted the Twins should have bet on winning even when presented with those odds. I would not be too concerned that you can't make everyone understand the rationale of the FO.

Our staff needs long-term solutions at this point. This team is never going to be a contender until the starting rotation is solidified and we are a very long way from that point. These one years deals are great fort a pitcher to rebuild his value but unless we get a couple options year these bounce back deals do little to solidify our staff. Go get Cobb and 2 relievers.Start the season with Erv | Berrios | Cobb | Gibson & Mejia. Give Gonsalves | Romero | Littell and maybe even Slegers a chance to win a spot. We need some low cost guys to produce because Erv might not be here next year. Unless we get lucky for once with prospects, we are going to need to replace Erv. The good news is we will have his salary and Mauer's to fund another FA. I don't want to go into free agency next year wondering about the same SP prospects. If these guys step up, we could use the available dollars on whatever piece we need in terms of position players. If the SP prospects get a chance and fail, it will be clear to the FO and ownership the need to spend in free agency or trade away prospects. Personally, I like Ohtani for the second add to the rotation.

For starters, even with Arrieta, we are not on the same plane as the Indians, Astros, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Nationals, and Cubs. Beyond that reality, our core won't even hit 30 in that timeframe. Many people are making the point that if we manage our assets wisely we can extend the most important players like we did with Mauer. We also have a very deep system that should produce low cost players for the next several years. The window is only 4-5 years if our assets are managed poorly.

When you say contend ... Do you mean we should be a contender to get to the World Series or should we win the division or do you mean we should contend for a wild card spot. It makes quite a bit of difference in how we should approach the season. There were a lot of fans here who thought we should trade away young talent a couple years for Tulo, Shields, LuCroy, etc. because we were ready to contend. We are still not close to the level of Houston, Cleveland, Boston, and NY. For this team to contend beyond a 2nd wildcard they would basically need 80% or more of the following to occur ..... One of the top FA SPs Santana can't decline at all. Berrios has to step it up considerable We need the best version of Gibson all year Mejia needs to step up. Need to add 2 very good BP arms Hildy and Busenitz can't sophomore slump Sano needs to stay healthy and improve his approach Buxton needs to be far more consistent offensively Polanco needs to be much closer to the great 6 weeks he had than the rest of the season. Kepler needs take a step forward. An aging Mauer needs to maintain his level of play Dozier needs to remain in a Twins uniform. Need a great year in terms of avoiding injuries That's a lot of contingencies to say they should contend. I seriously doubt the national media is going to say this team should contend. We need to make room for May (Long relief is a good start) and eventually give Gonsalves, Romero, and a number of BP arms a chance to establish themselves so that this team can become a true contender. Let's get that done this year instead of being a perpetual pretender. It does not make sense to position a world Championship as the only thing that matters and then take an approach with very little chance of getting there.

Is the man/woman who finished second in his/her class at Harvard making five million dollars a year a loser because someone finished higher than him/her or because there are athletes that make 5X that amount. Sorry, I don’t find the “everyone who did not finish 1st is a loser” to be very enlightened. How does one look at their own life with this type of outlook and not be disappointed? The Championship or bust philosophy is one that is certain to bring disappointment nearly every year. I refuse to approach something that is supposed to be entertaining that way. I would much prefer to have a very good product to watch most years than to have 20 years of futility followed by one world series win and back to mediocrity or worse. Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint. I just prefer to appreciate great teams or anything else great even if they are not the very best.

One team does not define likely outcomes and nowhere did I suggest we should construct a team the way those twins teams were built. Did Cleveland and Detroit have multiple playoff runs during the periods mentioned. How about St Louis who by the way have been one of the most profitable franchises over the last 20 years so they obviously had additional spending capacity? Let's not get away from the real point which is building a team that is a perennial playoff team vs pushing all your chips in to maximize your odds during a very short window. Are you OK with 20 years of futility like the Royals and Pirates had before having a brief window of contention? The just go for it approach is fine for fans but the people that get paid to lead organizations don't get to such a position by ignoring the long-term impact of their decisions.

Perhaps we just have different desires for our team. 20 years of futility for a couple of good years and I would bet they are nor back in contention for another decade. That's not what I want for our team. The playoffs are very unpredictable. I want to watch a good team as many years as possible for 162 games. Playoff runs are a likely outcome of a perennial playoff team. You need to explain your position on payroll. KC's opening day payroll was $20M more than Cleveland this year and $30M more in 2016. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/ According to Forbes, their profits were lower than most other teams during this window and they had a small loss last year. https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall Please explain how they were cheap when they were aggressive enough with payroll to have a net loss.

How can one division title during a window be perfect execution?. Detroit won the division four years in a row prior to the one KC won.. The Twins won it 6 of 9 years prior to Detroit and Cleveland won it 6 of 7 years prior to Detroit.. One division championship is not perfect utilization and I sure hope the Twins can extend their window beyond the point when the current core become free agents.

Your response is confusing because the basis of the original post was holding onto established assets (Dozier) when the return was not adequate. The reference to KC is not specific to any move but their overall approach. We are not speculating. The trade for Shields did not win them any division titles and we know they were at their best after he was gone. We also know they are now in a terrible position that will likely result in a long period of mediocrity or worse. To get Shields they traded away an all-star (Myers) and a mid-rotation guy that could have helped them throughout this entire window (Odorizzi) They did not even make the playoffs the first season and were the wild card the next year. I seriously doubt anyone would trade away Buxton and Gonsalves for a one game play-off (wildcard) in a single year. They could have kept Odorizzi and traded Myers for assets that would have contributed to extending their window instead of shortening it. They would have been in far better shape had they traded Myers for SP that would have been ready a couple years after the trade. Trading Myers could have easily netted a very good SP and another contributing asset or two. A big part of their core (SS & CF) came from trading Grienke. The rest of their core were drafted or International signings and they had a couple FA starting pitchers that were a tier below Santana that happened to perform well. We could use Houston if you prefer. They traded away every veteran of value. One year their entire payroll was under $40M. Want to think longer term. Oakland has had the best winning percentage of any mid-market team and better than many large market teams. Beane built those teams trading established players before they got too expensive. The winning Tampa Bay teams were also constructed the same way. Johan and Nathan were products of such trades. Harvey and Kluber and we could go on and on.

There is some merit to your point. However, this kind of philosophy also tends to create cycles where mid market teams are awful for extended periods. KC is a good example. That kind of all-in management is very likely to produce longer down cycles and shorter windows of contention. This is actually probably a market inefficiency. Fans and organizations want results now. That often does not maximize asset value in a variety of situations. If that pick turns out to be another Berrios 5 years from now, good low cost SP could make it feasible to extend one of our core instead of letting them go which is the assumption being made managing to this specific window. Why not pursue strategies with the potential of extending our window of contention?

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Gordon ends up at SS or 2B with 3B a very unlikely scenario. Let's hope Sano shocks us by showing up for spring training in phenomenal shape. If he can't cut it in great shape, he becomes the 1B in 2019, Gordon goes to short and Polanco 2B. Take the 30M in payroll savings and invest in pitching.

So you move Sano to 1st and weaken our D at 1st and have a $23M DH with no power. Plus, you would either need to spend FA dollars that should be used on SP or RP or trade away the inexpensive future players who will improve the team over the next couple years. I agree on Polanco in that now is not the time to move him. Let's see if he can be closer to the version that tore it up for 6 weeks last year for an entire season. Then, move him to second when Dozier departs and insert Gordon. Would love to see Dozier extended but it makes more sense to spend the money elsewhere.

I absolutely agree that trading veterans should be a primary strategy during a rebuild or even to sustain a high level of play . I also agree that a lot fans are extremely focused on the immediate and don’t consider the implications on building an organization that sustains winning. Having said this … Our front office obviously did not feel that JDL was a prospect with an adequate probability of contributing to our future in a meaningful way. Therefore, while many of us agree with your concept we don’t agree that you sell for whatever the market will bear. I suspect the FO felt as I did at the time that 2 years of Dozier + a draft pick >>> JDL. Plus, there was also the possibility of moving him at a later date for a better return.

It would make sense that MLB would be the administrator of health and pension plans but are these programs funded by the teams? I could not find anything that confirms MLB players are contract employees. Are you assuming they are independent contractors because they have a contract or is there verification somewhere? It would be nice to know as we discuss the viability potential FA acquisitions and extensions. It might also come into play where minimum wage for minor league players are concerned. They too have contracts but are they employment contractors or are they independent contractors?

My guess is that the very top guys are going to command ridiculous money. That is going to absorb an unusual portion of the available payroll dollars. My hope is that it will present an opportunity for us to get what in most years would be a top 2-3 ranked FA that might be 6th or 7th in terms of contract next year. I would certainly not make plans based on this coming together but theoretically we are going to be well-positioned next year with big $ coming off the books and extraordinary supply. I don't think this prevents signing a Lynn/Cobb type this year. The dollars allocated to Mauer and Gibson (as an example) could be used to land an elite FA. It would sure help if a couple more of our BP prospects step up next year.

It would be nice if we could validate the numbers because its hard to take too of a stance on anything without all of the facts. I think you really got to the heart of the matter which is what would it really take to be a real contender and perhaps most importantly, is the team ready. It's quite similar to Kansas City's situation in 2013. I don't want to follow their blueprint to a small window of contention. They were not ready in 2013. 2014 worked out well but they were not that great but got really hot at the end of the season. Still, they were within a couple innings of getting absolutely nothing out of the considerable assets they gave up. A wildcard game is just a really poor result IMO. Had they kept Odorizzi and traded Myers for pitching that would contribute 2-3 years after that trade. It's pure conjecture but I believe they likely would have extended their window. They might have even been able to keep enough of this core together now had they had pre-arb guys to bring in the last couple years. I would not go all-in yet. They lose a lot of salary next year and it's feasible they could land one of the very top free agent SPs, especially if the core does get established and the bullpen gets shored up. We still have the core for 3-4 years. We would look better to FAs and it will likely be the best FA crop since free agency started. There is a limit to the amount of dollars available so we would be better positioned. We also can afford to extend a couple of the core players if we keep prospects to supplement the roster over the next 2-3 years.

Payroll does not equal salary.. Payroll = Salary + Payroll Taxes + Health Insurance + Retirement Contribution + any other benefits.. This is why I asked if the 52% was from an interview or two or if this was ever explained.. It's possible this was said in the context of salary only but I have worked with hundreds of large companies and payroll cost is always expressed in terms of salary + benefits. Benefits run around 30% for most companies. This group of employees is quite different because of the average salary.. However, the number is still probably 10% or more so we can't calculate the actual number with validate if they are including payroll taxes and benefits.

Is the 52% number something that has been repeated often or was it used once or twice and somehow became the standard used here. The reason I ask is because the net impact of 52% of revenue spent on player salaries is very different when revenue is up 20% vs down 20%. Regardless, they made a mistake every portraying this as their standard and they are making a mistake if they are actually using it to set payroll. I do think it's fair for fans to expect some of the "elevated profits" to be invested back into the team. However, I would add that the fans will generally think the timing of such investment is more immediate than a F/O looking to build a contender. Point being ... An incremental 10 or even 20M is not going to make this team a contender. Even adding Darvish, the starting rotation is not equal to the real contenders and the bullpen is a long way from that of a contender. The prospects are there but it will take time to develop. Even the core is not there yet. None of them have yet to put together a full season.

This premise of “MLB owners should operate as a non-profit so we could improve our team keeps coming up. This premise is a failure of economics 101. If MLB owners operated as a non-profit we would still be in the same position in terms of competing for free agents. We might even be worse off because some of the large market teams make about the same net percentage as the Twins but have higher revenue. Therefore, even more incremental revenue would be available to those teams. The net effect would be player salaries would be even higher. The only way this would benefit our team is if the Pohlads were willing to operate as a non-profit while the rest of league maintained business practices focused on maintaining profitability as they do now. There also would not be MLB at least not even remotely close to form we enjoy now. It takes a whole lot of capital to build and maintain an entire industry. Given business valuations are based on sustainable profitability the only way MLB could exist in this form would be if it were government sponsored non-profit.

Exactly, Acquiring an established SP with 3-4 years of control carries such a lofty price that you likely hurt the franchise long-term. KC just demonstrated how to have 20 years of futility and then a very short window of contention. What would be the short-term effect?. Archer would not put us on the level of the Indians so we are still likely playing for a wildcard. That does not have the same benefit it did just a few years ago. It's the equivalent of a game 163. Even if you get there the chances are 50/50 you don't get to a playoff series. If we have to trade one of our young core to get an Archer the gain on the Indians is reduced or eliminated. If not, it would take a package that likely included Lewis and a couple of our other top SP prospects. Perhaps Lewis and two of Gonsalves, Romero, and Thorpe. I also think he is a border line ace and we would still be at a disadvantage in a playoff series with the other top contenders. I just don't see a net gain trading for an established "ace" level SP. Let's hope Falvine can identify a break-out candidate for us.

I knew where you were coming from, Mike. The big picture is he was coming of TJ. I am just not sure I agree his results were bad. His ERA was about the same as Santana's. I never saw a single inning he pitched but would we rather have a good FIP or ERA? The FIP is cause for concern but how was his "stuff"? Was his velocity back to normal by the end of the season? Concluding he was bad because his FIP was high seems to be a rush to judgment. Falvey and Levine have a good track record where these assessments are concerned. I will feel pretty good about the off-season if they sign Cobb or conclude Lynn is likely to pitch like he did pre TJ and sign him. Add one or two BP pieces along with all of the BP prospects and next year should be the best team we have had in a long time.

Next year will be his 2nd year after TJ. His ERA first year back was better than every SP we had last year other than Santana. Granted, he is in the NL and his FIP was high. The question is will he get back to the level of performance he had pre TJ. That guy would be a very welcome addition. Our win total should go up with a more experienced core and Santana | Berrios | Lynn | Mejia & Gibson. Hopefully, Gonsalves should be ready. Slegers | Littell & Enns provide depth. Right now the list of guys that can help us is very short and the list of teams who wnat them is much longer. Sure we would like to have Darvish or Arrieta but that would require we outbid several teams with considerably more revenue that are markets which also provide greater endorsement potential. History would suggest that is not going to happen regardless of it's the Twins or a similar market. So, let's get Cobb or Lynn. They are the Santana's of this free agent class.

There have been quite a few guys who wanted X and got much less than X. Who knows with the shortage of SP but I don't think he gets that kind of money. 4 and 80 would not surprise me but 5 and 100 would.