Major League Ready

8 Players are coming off the 26 man at the end of next season. Jake Odorizzi Nelson Cruz Marwin Gonzalez Homer Bailey Romo Alex Avilia Rich Hill Tyler Clippard There are also some very expendable players on the 40 man. Plus, it's quite likely a couple players get traded. I don't see a big problem on the horizon.

This medium makes it easy for arguments to change forms somewhat. I guess my argument should have been nobody cares if you trade Cave, Wade, Raley or probably even Rooker. I am going to go out on a limb and say most of us who want to preserve prospects don’t care about them. I guess I ignored the argument of trading the surplus. Because I just don’t believe depth can be traded for good starting pitching unless that SP has a big contract. Cave / Wade Raley or even Rooker or even all of them together does not land a front of the rotation SP. You mentioned their relative value in your post so why would you conclude they could be traded for good pitching? We have two OF prospects (Kirilloff / Larnach) who will make a difference in acquiring someone better than Berrios. IDK but I think it makes a lot of sense to move Sano to DH when Cruz departs and Kirilloff takes 1B. He is not even an average defender at a corner OF spot as I understand it. Perhaps I am wrong but this seems to makes sense. If this is true, we really have one really good OF prospect (Larnach) to take Rosario's place. The timing should be perfect for him to come up next year and prove he is Rosario’s replacement. I think Wade & Raley have very little value. Cave has some value and Rooker will need to prove he can make enough contact at the MLB level before he has any real value. I am pretty sure all of us prospect hoarders would trade depth for a Berrios + level SP. It’s the other teams that won’t go along with that scenario.

I am not saying it's not OK to trade, especially outside the top 5 in this specific case. What I am saying is the facts are quite clear in terms of how teams are valuing prospects. Listen to the Front Office on MLB Radio and this topic comes up fairly often. I included a synopsis of the ALL the playoff teams with top farm systems. I don't have Kasten and Friedman's credentials so my opinion does not matter. Their direction however is quite clear. We can also look at Atlanta. They have a loaded system and they are not trading top prospects. Feel free to point out examples of them trading top prospects. Obviously, this could change tomorrow. Tampa Bay's roster has numerous players acquired as prospects. They have valued prospects to the point of trading established players to load their system. Is this true or is this untrue in terms of what these teams have done of late? Never mind my opinion. What have these team's indicated through their actions.

The old front office was justifiably ridiculed for not recognizing and applying modern metrics. As teams hired leadership with a more sophisticated skill set, prospect valuation and practices changed. Most teams are more inclined to hold onto prospects as compared to a decade or two ago. They have assessed the relative merit / success of pushing the chips in and have adopted new practices. The two men at the top of the Dodgers organization (Stan Kasten / Andrew Friedman) are among the most highly respected executives in sports. Their actions have made their strategy where prospects are concerned it quite clear. Their top 10producers in terms of WAR from last year’s 106 win consisted of 6 drafted players, 3 Intl draft and one that was traded for as a prospect. Not a single FA or player that was traded for after becoming established. They have done a 180 from their practices of a decade ago. The Braves have a more depth than the Twins at least in terms of elite prospects. Yet, they have made no such trades. Arizona has 20 40+ prospects (Twins have 15). They had the 6th most wins in the NL last year. Obviously, they are close and have chosen to retain their prospects. Teams are much less inclined to trade prospects than many fans. I would suggest this is a product teams wanting sustained success and many fans wanting to go all-in for the present. Looking at last year’s playoff rosters it might also have to do with recent outcomes of these trades. Looking at the top 88 players from 2019 playoff teams in terms of WAR. 28 were Drafted (32%) 8 were Intl players (9%) 21 were traded for as prospects. (24%) 21 were free agents (24%) 10 were traded for as established players (11%) This would indicate trading prospects for established players has favored the team getting prospects. It’s not exactly rock solid proof but the indication is clear.

Last year he had a 4.55 FIP 1.318 WHP and 6.9 SO/9. Does not sound like a front of the rotation guy to me. What am I missing?

The obvious answer is we need someone that can go toe to toe with Cole/Severino and/or Verlander/Greinke. The better question might be is there a SP realistically available right now that can go toe to toe with them. Personally, I am hoping for Charlie Morton at the trade deadline.

Seth, Do you believe the 26th roster spot will be used at least in part for auditions? Sano to DH after 2020 seems to be the logical path with Kirilloff or Rooker taking over at 1B. Sure would be nice if we got a look at them this year. Same could be true with Larnach depending on how Rosario looks the first couple months of the season. What do you think? Are these guys more likely to get an audition with the expanded roster?

Don't get me wrong ... That's a very fair point. The optimist in me wants to hope that Buxton could become the Superstar he was projected to be. I want to believe Kepler or Sano could go the way of Christian Yehlich instead of the other way. Maybe Dubnak could shock us all and be our guy that came out of nowhere or Graterol steps up big. Hey, I know it's wishful thinking but it's fun to think it could happen. We had a lot of unknowns turn out pretty well last year. How about a continuation of that trend? As long as I am wishing big, how about Donaldson does an Adrian Beltre impersonation the next 4 years and delivers 20 WAR for his age 34-37 seasons.

Fair enough on Greinke but you guys sure do bend the narrative to your liking. We are talking about the specifics of this year's market. The argument was the Twins failed because they refused to pay the premium required. Mike could not refute the point that none of the other teams that were in on Wheeler / Bumgarner were willing to pay the premium associated with those players. This specificity allows us to judge our FO vs all of the other FOs involved. Let's be clear. All of the other teams involved concluded Wheeler and Bumgarner DID NOT merit the premium required to get them away from their preferred team. Rather than concede this point Mike changed the argument to what about deadline trades.

No. You are talking about multiple years. I am talking about last year. The market is different ever year. The asking price was apparently high enough last year than none of the actual playoff ("successful") teams were willing to trade for a SP. Fact or fiction? They signed not one but two BP arms and I don't think they needed any help with position players. Also last year was the first year in a very long time where the Twins were at least somewhat legit contenders. You may count the year they crept into the 2nd wildcard spot with a team that really was never a contender but I do not.

Exactly which successful teams dealt for "impact" SPs last year at the deadline? Each year has a unique set of circumstances so you can compare just any year. I guess we could Stroman as an impact SP but the Mets are hardly an example of success. One 90 win (exactly 90) season in the past decade with 2 other seasons over 500. Obviously, Cole / Strassburg and Ryu were not going to be traded so they don't count but none of the playoff teams were willing to pay the price necessary to get Wheeler/Madbum or any other impact SP.

There really were not 5. Cole and Stassburg were not realistic. Wheeler/Bumgarner - That is a very naive view IMO. Convince Wheeler family ties don't matter? Convince Bumgarner his desire for a horse ranch in Arizona is silly? The only option in the Wheeler/Bumgarner cases was a massive over pay. What is absolutely crystal clear is that NO OTHER MLB front office was willing to pay the premium required. Therefore, you are assuming to have a superior understanding of how to build a MLB team, not only as compared to the twins FO but also every other team in on Wheeler/Bumgarner. Good for you! Seems I heard the exact same rhetoric regarding elite FA RPs last year. The FO was either stupid or just cheap from not recognizing what a no-brainer it was to sign Familia / Kimbrel / Miller / Robertson / Herrera / etc.

We just don't agree on RYU. Where Wheeler and MadBum are concerned, there were numerous other teams interested in them. Any of them could have followed your suggested strategy. None of them did. Not a single one. This is not theoretical. We know none of the other teams were willing to apply your strategy. Are you asserting a superior decision making ability to all of these GMs because the facts are quite clear here. None of them were willing to make the overpay you suggest or those offers/amounts still did not get the job done. BTW ... If you are interested in an outside perspective, Mark Polisuk answered two related questions in his chat yesterday. https://www.jotcast.com/chat/mlbtr-live-chat-6742.html

Cole and Srassburg were economic reality. Wheeler and Badbum had very strong preferences to be with a specific team. Your positioning suggests they just did not want to come to Minnesota. There were numerous other teams interested in Wheeler/Madbum. Any of those teams could have offered a massive overpay. They did not. Do you suppose fans have a superior grasp of what’s best for the teams as compared to all of the GMs who did not act? They made a judgment call on Ryu which is very hard to criticize if any critical thought is applied. Obviously, The Dodgers felt the money could be invested more productively elsewhere. Kasten and Freidman have stellar reputations. Do Twins fans know better than them too? Before you condemn, consider the only playoff teams from last year that did not go backwards were the Yankees and the possibly the Braves. Houston lost almost 13 WAR and replaced it with very little. Milwaukee lost Grandal / Moose / Pomeranz / Gonzales and Thames. Their only significant addition has been Garcia. TB lost Garcia and D’Arnaud and added literally nobody. Oakland lost Anderson / Roark and Bailey while adding nobody. STLs net add is Michael Wacha for 1/3M. Washington lost Rondon and replaced him with 7 players who add up to the same salary Rendon received. Basically, the opposite philosophy you are asserting. One team basically was able to achieve what you are asserting should be expected and that team did it based mostly on financial advantage. Pretty easy to expect perfection. Another thing all together to achieve it.

What would you have done differently? Outbid the top revenue team in league for Cole? Given an 8th year to Stassburg which still might not been enough to get him away from the Nats? Massive overpay for Wheeler to get him to ignore family values Massive overpay for Madbum to compensate him for his preference to be in Arizona. Outbid the Jays 4/80 bid for a 33 y/o with a significant history of injury. Which one sounds like the most realistic or best option for a below average revenue team?

You are using 6 FTEs. They only get paid MLB compensation when they are on the 26 man roster. We are in real trouble if we have 6 guys out on average for the entire season. The cost for MiLB replacements is more like $1M. I suppose it could be a little more if we have another Arreaz arise but the FO would be happy with that scenario!

I think that's a fair take. As a matter of fact, I see almost exactly the same scenario. Where we differ is that while I would have been OK with them signing Ryu but I also have zero problem with them passing on a giving a 33 y/o SP a 4 year/80M contract with his injury history. There was a segment on MLB TV where the topic was "over/under" and they asked the panelists to predict if Ryu would start +/- 80 games over the duration of his 4 year contract. All of them said under. Hard to get angry about not making a desperate move with such a high likelihood of failure. I would rather spend the money on Donaldson in spite of our need for starting pitching.

Why would a player pass on the Twins because they had a perception the Twins have been cheap in the past If the Twins have the high offer and the player was only interested in the high offer? Sorry, your bid was the highest but I won't play for you because I don't think you have bid aggressively with other FAs?

I did not start the tangent. I responded to their assertion that assessed value is "silly" and other more colorful descriptions. If the critique and assumed expertise in valuation methodology is relevant so is the rebuttal.

I used specifics as illustration of a concept. The point being identifying the Morton type deals is even more important than signing the 5+ year guys. The track record of these FAs makes that quite clear. The argument was never the affordability of Donaldson. I posted a plan which clearly shows a budget capable of absorbing Donaldson. This whole line of debate for me is purely the ignorance associated with the dismissal of utilizing assessed value. The responses would suggest most respondents never actually considered what I was actually saying and rushed to conclusion I must be dismissing the viability of signing Donaldson when I never once even offered an opinion. I don't think it matters if they they can't find a way to add impact pitching but I would support adding him at 4/90 or less.

See link below. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes I could make the same argument that it would cost $500M to put together a team of free that produced 100 wins but that is taking the premise to absurdity. To argue that a below average team MUST extract more production per dollar spent is truly ignorant. I don't mean stupid. I mean willingness to ignore an irrefutable fact. It's this simple ... The more effective the FO is where this principal is concerned, the more ability they have to spend in free agency. Yet, people detest the practice. The problem is not that the FO just does not get it.

Look back. I have not offered an opinion on Donaldson because I am somewhat indifferent. The only point I have been making is that maximizing value per dollar spent is essential to building a winner. That concept is generally lost here. What is even more disturbing is the constant waxing on about the incompetence of the organization by people who don't understand the function and value of assessed value. The irony is that so many clamored for analytics and apparently don't understand assessed value is a significant product of those analytics.

No. My plan was specific to one of two expensive FAs… Wheeler was #1 and Bumgarner #2. If Donaldson can provide impact pitching your point might make sense. That budget considered AAV and years to ensure key players could be retained. When that failed to materialize I did not assume the next best strategy was the sign the guy who costs the most. That has very consistently been your strategy as well as many others here who asserted the need to sign players like Machado at 30M/yr or Harper for 35M. I think the ability to identify and sign Charlie Morton and DJ Lemahiau who produced a combined 11.6 WAR vs 3.1 for Machado is more important to building a contender. It leaves me enough left over to sign Clippard too. This just so happens to be the essence of assessed value. You have a very consistent assumption … more years and more dollars = better. You have never provided any support for this position. It’s an assumption and I have given you the hard facts to refute that assumption. You elect to ignore them. The function and value of assessed value is irrefutable. Rather than acknowledging that it is a practice in most strategic decisions, you fired back with “we just want one expensive free agent. This once again demonstrates the complete absence of critical thought. You could make a point that assessed value could be used to determine the relative merit of any plan but you certainly can’t assert that the inclusion of an expensive player in the plan somehow discredits the use of assessed value. It makes absolutely no sense.

It is implied by the position that assessed value is stupid. Putting the best team on the field requires getting the most value per $ spent. On several occasions in the past posters have stated they could care less about winning the value proposition. This ignores the need to get production per dollar spent. The basis of any personnel strategy in MLB is assessed value. So, in a word, yes!

I have no idea what point you are making. Can we agree that teams with less than average revenue have to produce more wins/per dollar spent if they are to compete with teams with more revenue?