Major League Ready

I am an advocate of them going 4-5 years for Wheeler or Bumgarner. However, year after year several posters insist signing the 5 year type guys is essential to winning. You and several others were quite incensed the Twins did not agree it was a no brainer to sign 2 of the high-end RPs. We would not be positioned to fill the holes we have in the rotation had the Twins FO agreed. It would be great if proponents actually checked this premise to see how successful teams were constructed. This year the 4 teams with the best records in MLB had a total of one free agent on a 4+ year deal that produced 1.5+ fWAR. That was Chapman. Morton was signed on a 2-year deal and had 1.3 higher fWAR than Corbin. LaMahieu and Donaldson (2 years and 1 year) produced 10.3 fWAR. Machado and Harper produced 7.7 fWAR. The 8 playoff teams had 102 players with 1.5+ WAR. Four of them were acquired via the type of contract you insist is critical to success. The Dodgers are a great case study. Go back 10 years. They signed the FAs you describe and traded for big name players. They went nowhere. The only FA player contributing 1.5 + fWAR last year were Intl free agents of modest cost. They had no players that were acquired as established MLB players. Of course, they do have an exceptionally high cost RP in Janzen but he was replacement level. The lowest revenue teams (Oakland / Tampa Bay) had 6 FAs contributing 1.5+ fWAR. Four of them were 1 year deals and Two 2-year deals. They had zero players acquired as established players and 12 between them acquired as prospects. They only had 5 players between the two teams that were drafted by the Rays/As. The facts do not support your theory.

Why would a team trade a #1 for a #3? The only reason a team trades a legit #1 SP is for a haul of prospects or prospects plus salary relief.

Yet, among playoff teams, there were twice as many high performing players that were acquired as prospects as compared to those acquired as proven MLB players. While this leaves some room for interpretation, established players are generally traded for prospects. The fact that there were so many more players acquired as prospects does suggest that trading for prospects is more productive than trading away prospects. It would be interesting to put together the data for the last 10 years. Not so interesting that I would take on that task but interesting none the less.

Agree 100% with the first two and while I don't disagree with Garver won't put up 900 OPS in 2020, I would like to think he has a shot at continuing at a very high level. This production started the middle of 18. The suspect part is that he has only had 359 PAs since the middle of 2018. However, take a look at the number below since 7-1-18.

The problem with this type of study is that the majority of people glean from it whatever supports their predisposed position. The tendency is to focus on whatever subset of the data supports a given position. In this case, 80% of prospects fail. One of the first steps in any data analysis is to assess the correlation with whatever it is you are trying to conclude. I will come back to that point. First, let’s take an objective view of this data. Perhaps this high failure rate defines the key to success in a different way. Perhaps the difference between success and failure is relative success in converting (developing) prospects to MLB players. Maybe the key is producing MLB contributors from players outside the top 100 or a combination of these two factors. The data clearly shows there is a wide difference in success rates between MLB teams. What are we trying to conclude here? Is it what percentage of prospects fail? I don’t think that is the end game. IMO, the question is actually what is the most effective way to construct a playoff team. The most effective way to do that is to actually look at how each form of player acquisition contributes to the construction of playoff rosters? It’s much more conclusive to look at the actual results as opposed to drawing a conclusion as to how important prospects are to building a playoff roster based on failure rate of top 100 prospects. Last year, the 7 teams (not counting the Twins) who made the playoffs had a total of 88 players that contributed 1.5+ fWAR. 28 (32%) were drafted. 21 (24%) were traded for as prospects. 8 (9%) were Intl signings. 10 (11%) were trade for after becoming established. 21 (24%) were signed as free agents. Drafted players combined with players traded for as prospects represent 56% of the highest contributing players. Established players acquired in trade represent only 11% of the players that contributed the most to playoff teams. Free agents had a much higher contribution. However, many of them were the type of players / contracts frowned upon here. Of the 21 free agents, only 4 had 5+ year deals. 6 were two-year deals and 11 were 1 year contracts. The two lowest budget teams are very interesting in terms of the value of trading for established players vs the value of trading for prospects. Between Oakland and Tampa, they only 23 players with a WAR of 1.5 or higher. They only drafted 5 of those players. However, they traded for 12 of their 23 highest performing players as prospects. They had 6 free agents. Four of them were 1-year deals and two were 2-year deals. The total for all six contracts was $55M, $30M to Charlie Morton. 2 players (Tommy Pham / Homer Bailey) were acquired in trade. What do the actual results of these practices tell us?

We had a lot of the same indignant responses when Sano was first criticized here. A couple years later the majority of people were pretty down on Sano. It was pretty much the same thing as I recall. Nobody thought he was a terrible player but he did not have the commitment necessary to make him the star he could be. I have great hope that Rosario finally recognizes he could be a far better / far more consistent player if he improves his plate discipline. I believe he wants to be great so badly that he can't help himself. The good news is that it is all together possible he will get sick and tired of pitchers making him look foolish and dedicate himself to taking better ABs like Sano did last year. You would think Sano's resurgence would be a great lesson for Eddie.

Aggressive within the strike zone is great but there are a high percentage of ABs where Eddie swings at a borderline pitch or a pitch outside the zone on the first pitch or even when he is ahead in the count. There is no selection once he gets two strikes. He is swinging. Being aggressive is not helping. Nobody can hit the crap pitchers throw at him now. He is so skilled that he is still able to hit some of those pitches but he would have Yehlich like numbers if he made opposing pitchers give him something in the strike zone. This is frustrating to watch because I can’t help but wonder what we would have in Eddie if he took more professional ABs.

Kirby was the model of consistency. He averaged 4.25 bWAR for 12 seasons. He had 2 seasons over 7 bWAR. Rosario has 10.3 bWAR over 5 season for an average of 2.06. Rosario has only had 1 season where he exceeded 3 bWAR and that was 2018 when he produced that WAR in the 1st half of the season. Since then, he has barley been above replacement value. Sure, stats don't tell everything but don't compare Rosario has not earned the right to be compared to Puckett. I will be just fine watching Rosario play with no discipline when he can produce like Kirby while doing so.

I am not sure I understand your point. Market size is basically an absolute and revenue, relatively speaking, is quite predictable when you consider the other side of the equation (player performance) has significant variance. Am I remembering correctly that the twins use previous years revenue in constructing their budget? Regardless, I don't understand the inference that spending is based on a perception. Are you saying that small or mid market teams don't go after the highest dollar free agents because of an understanding among teams to pursue only FAs who profile a certain way based on market size?

I am not sure which FO representative started the hole 50% measure but it makes little sense to use a percentage of revenue as a gauge for spending. It would make some sense if you were selling a product with a relatively static cost of goods sold. However, the Twins product has very little incremental cost. In other words, if the Twins revenue were to climb $30M, there would be very little additional cost to the organization. Therefore they could spend a higher percentage. I guess you have accounted for that in the 48-52% but it's worth nothing the spending capacity as a percentage is higher when revenue goes up substantially.

I would think the fact he can play both 1B and OF will get him here quicker. The scouting reports I found are old. How does he compare to Larnach as an OFer? Is Rooker destined for 1B? He does not seem to be an OF solution. I could see him being brought up mid-season if Cron does not produce, assuming Cron is signed.

The baseline without Odorizzi is $75.7M using MLB rumors projected arbitration amounts assuming Cron is tendered an offer. So, that's 93.5M with Odorizzi. I don't know where they will end up because it will depend a great deal on if they can get a top SP to sign here. My guess is they surpass your number because I want to believe they sign an impact SP. $138-140M is my guess.

I agree with you conceptually and from a best practices point of view. Hell, I applaud the insight and aptitude. It’s not hard to come up with a plan to improve in the immediate term. Sustaining success is far more difficult. Specifically where Cruz / Cron, and Rosario are concerned, I have to agree with Mike. Cruz is going to be hard to replace no matter what. However, there will be good options in the form of a prospect for that roster spot. Cron is really not hard to replace and I would hope that one of our prospects could be even better. I am not sure about Rosario. He has huge upside but he has produced 1.2 fWAR over the past season and a half. The league has adjusted and he has proven to be incapable of the plate discipline necessary to count the adjustments teams have made. It's likely IMO that Kirilloff or Larnach will produce better than Eddie in his current form at a prearb cost. The key is can they produce impact starting pitching? In this case, I am referring to their financial ability to keep the team together. They have quite a few guys that could step up over the next 2 years and lead the rotation. That would make it possible to replace Odorizzi next year with a prearb contract. It’s a good bet we will have another guy ready in 2 years. That’s why I am an advocate of a Pineada type signing for 2 years. The next would be nearly $30M coming off over at the end of 2021. They are positioned to be very good for several years if they keep the right prospects. Obviously, there are fans who would prefer to present focused approach but that's not going to happen. (see LA Dodgers)

We have seen several teams rebuild because they built the team in a financially unsustainable manner. The spreadsheet below has a projected payroll for 2020 but it also has the year the player hits free agency. This helps take a long-term look at the roster and also provides a view of potential sources of funds. Cruz comes off after 2020 as does Cron if we assume they keep him. The plan I have has a $143M payroll. The departure of Cruz and Cron provides $20M to cover arbitration / other increases. Gonzales comes off after 2021 providing another $9M. Rosario is another possible source if needed or if an advantageous scenario presents itself. Bottom line is that we will have the financial resource to cover increases in 2021 /2022 and keep this team together. Cruz / Cron / Gonzales represent just shy of $40M AAV. This is part of why I would keep Cruz. By next year we should be able to replace him with a prospect. Replacing Cruz will be a tall order but we have some good bats waiting in the wings.

It just does not generally work that way with the top guys, especially with so many teams (high revenue teams) looking for SPs. It does not matter what you offer, their agent is going to see if they can get more or get the same amount from a team they prefer.

I am thinking it makes them bold going after Wheeler / Bumgarner because it reduces risk. It does make signing both more financially viable. Obviously, it does not make it any easier to attract two top FA starting pitchers when so many team are pursuing SPs but I think it makes them a little bolder.

Sorry, I missed that part. Just heard on MLB radio Odorizzi is strongly considering taking the QO so we might have a SP on a 1 year deal by the end of the day.

As you have noted since the season ended, the Twins have 4 spots to fill in the rotation and there are numerous teams looking for starting pitching. Many of them with more revenue than the Twins. The difficulty of filling all those spots in a single year has been pointed out by several people here. Adding a solid SP on a 1 year deal has no down side. Put together the best possible team for 2020 and address one spot (hopefully) in the rotation next year.

Perhaps I failed to convey it but I was trying to make the exact point you just made.

Trading Gray would signify the Rockies are going to rebuild. Why would they trade Grey who has 2 years of control for any position player with 2 years control? Rosario has very little value to a rebuilding team. I would love to see an answer from any of the people who are suggesting similar trades. Teams have adjusted their approach to Rosario. His value is very modest unless he proves he can apply a reasonable degree of plate discipline. Why sell low. Give him a chance to prove he can adjust. I don’t believe he does not know where the ball is going. He gets the bat on balls that are 16 inches off the plate, balls in his eyes and balls in the dirt. The question is why the hell is he swinging at the balls? Eddie would be one of the best hitters in the league if he did what Sano did last year in terms of improved plate discipline. If I were signing an outfielder it would be a RH to platoon w/Cave. Perhaps Garcia. I really like Pomeranz to bolster the BP but it’s going to cost more than 3.5M. Chirinos is fine but why not just resign Castro? There are several high revenue teams shopping for SP. Wheeler is going to cost more than 4/72. My guess is that it takes a 5 year deal to land him. If not it will be something like $4/84 or an Arietta type deal for $3/75.

If the Twins really had no better use for their considerable payroll headroom in 2020, instead of Price they could offer to take on shorter-term dead money from the Red Sox, such as Pedroia's remaining contract (I'm unsure what Rusney Castillo's remaining obligations are). But I think there are better uses, so I don't really see how to make an attractive offer. Pedroia has $25M / Castillo $14M

Was thinking the exact same thing.

I agree their BP was effective but I would not judge their BP investment by what happened in this particular series. A couple things come to mind …. If the point is that investing in RPs is inefficient way to spend in free agency, the fact that the Yankees lead in this category does not mean it’s a good practice. Also, I would not look at a given example (the Yankees) when judging an investment or a practice. They represent a small sample. I would suggest looking at all relievers or all playoff teams to judge player acquisition models. This is a far more reliable practice. Any measure including all RPs of this profile will show them to be a poor investment. Two, the Yankees have literally double the revenue of the Twins. They could pay out 15M each for 6 RPs and still have the Twins budget to spend on 20 players instead of 26. The Twins will almost certainly fail if they follow the same practices as the Yankees. It is a mathematical certainty the Twins have to produce more with less payroll $. For example, The Yankees top RPs acquired by free agency were Chapman / Ottovitto / Britton for a total $39M AAV and they produced 4.2 fWAR. The Twins got 4.3 fWAR from Cruz for $12M. Spend the other $27M on Bumgarner and Pineda. I would allocate roughly $50M to starting pitching if I can attract the players. The other $15-20M between a b/u catcher, 1B, and a LH RP.

I like 1-5 and 8. #6) No way am I trading Balazovic for Igelasis. It is incredibly difficult for a mid-market team to acquire an ace via free agency or trade so trading one of the two prospects with a legit shot at being ace is a very bad plan unless it’s for an ace with multiple years of control. RPs are inconsistent and very few sustain success. No thanks. Balazovic is not going anywhere unless the FO sees something that gives them doubt. Rosario is becoming Duensing. He has very modest value and any team interested in him is not going to be a team that will give up starting pitching. That whole scenario has no merit. #7) RPs are the worst investment in MLB. The Twins have $ available for free agents because we don’t have any bad contracts. Take a look at recent history and spending $12M AAV on a RP is not the path that should be taken by a mid-market team. Has there been a mid-market team that has spent $10M+ AAV on a RP ever? Has to be some but it’s rare. You have to believe the AAV for RPs and cost in prospects is going to come down given the failure rate in recent years. Invest FA $ elsewhere until it does.

I agree completely except for the part we should move Eddie for a SP. It is very rare ( I can't think of a single example ) where a position player with 2 years of control is moved for good starting pitching. Any team wanting Rosario would be because they the have a hole to close in order to contend. Trading away a good starting pitcher does not fit in that scenario. He will be moved to make room for Larnach or Kirilloff when one of them proves to be ready. He could also be moved if the payroll can be allocated better elsewhere.