Major League Ready

The all it costs is money argument suggests how effectively the given payroll is used has little correlation to success. Given we can say with absolute certainty that the Twins have to produce nearly double the WAR per $ spent as the top teams in terms of revenue, this premise is badly flawed. Look up "opportunity costs".

I already said Greinke likely improves the team next year unless he drops off the ledge like James Shield did when he turned 35. Not the point ... Pitching is not the only way to make the team better? The incremental payroll budget should be used wherever it provides the greatest net gain. Even with the restriction of improving pitching, Extending Gibson or signing a similar FA + investing in the BP or the $13M being used to sign a $23M/year SP instead of a $10M SP is likely more effective than spending $25M/yr on Greinke in the final two years of his contract. Obviously, the $23M vs $10M is hypothetical but one thing we can say with certainty is that teams with $250-275M in annual revenue will run out of money before the teams with $450-$550M in revenue. Productivity per dollar spent is incredibly important for a team with less than average revenue no matter how unpopular the theory might be here. The difference provides a opportunity to sign Eovaldi as an example.

Who could blame you?

Tampa Bay DFAing him is a little curious. By that I mean it does not suggest they are confident he will repeat or improve on 2018. He is 2nd year arbitration player projected at 5.2M. Not bad for 2.1 WAR. He had a little over 1500 ABs going into 2018 and it's the first time he has had 500ABs in a season. The remaining 2 years are his age 29-30 seasons. Seems like a good value. The goods news is that we have Baldelli to advise the FO. He would be a nice acquisition if he maintains last year's productivity and a steal if he continues to progress during these prime years. Santana is more proven but Cron was slightly better last year. Cron is also right in his prime where Santana will be 33 next year. Power ages well so perhaps not an issue but perhaps a consideration.

Opinions on CJ Cron who was DFAed by the Rays? 123 OPS+ last year / 2 years of control and we could cut him next year if better option are present.

Can we give them JR Murphy back? Obviously, I am being facetious but this is a great buy low opportunity. It would be even better if we picked him up after being non-tendered and build in a couple option years. I suppose it would be possible to make the trade with an agreement for salary and options in place. Is there anything with the CBA or MLB rules that prevent us from paying him more this year to buy a couple option years.

Berrios was one place lower in WAR ranking among all MLB SPs last year. At the end of next season Berrios will be a couple months shy of 26 and Greinke will be about to turn 36. In other words, Berrios is coming into his prime and Greinke is at a point where a very large (almost all) SPs decline significantly. So, it’s possible Greinke will be better than Berrios next year but I would not bet on it. I would bet Berrios has a higher WAR over the next 3 years. Regardless, Greinke likely makes us better next year but unless he defies the odds in a big way, the money could be spent more effectively. I would prefer to extend Gibson or sign your $15-18M FA of choice this year or next and invest the difference. Eolvaldi would be a better choice too but obviously the competition will be fierce for him. Any of these moves makes us better for a longer period of time. We have plenty of investment opportunities. Buxton / Sano / Cave / Kepler / Austin / Garver and even Rosario all have a significant gap between floor and ceiling and it would be nice to have as much budget as possible to address these positions as some of them likely will fail. I include Rosario because he was horrible the 2nd half as a result of opposing pitchers adapting and I am not totally convinced he can counteract those adaptions.

Syndergaard is a true ace entering his prime with 3 years of control. The Mets are going to ask for a ludicrous return. Absolutely no way the Mets trade him if they are no very confident 2 of the players coming back are going to have an impact for several years and the top player coming back will likely have a ceiling to be as impactful as Syndergaard. The only teams that will be willing to play this price are teams that are currently contenders or very close to contention. Houston, NY, or Boston acquiring Syndergaard would have a significant impact on the balance of power among these “super teams”. The enormous cost might be worth it. With McCullers getting TJ, Houston needs a major SP acquisition to keep pace even if they retain Keuchel. Acquiring Syndergaard would also position several NL teams on the same level as the top AL contenders. Atlanta is just starting their window of contention and have the farm system to make the trade. He would make a huge difference in Milwaukee and they can’t afford this type of SP in free agency even if one existed. The Dodgers and Cubs be willing to pay the price to keep pace. Bottom line is trading for Syndergaard right now makes far more sense for a number of teams not in MN.

Easy mistake to make. 62.5M is deferred, not remaining. 105M of the original 206.5M remains so it would make more sense that roughly half the deferral remains which is what the other article confirms.

The dollars are probably right. However, if I were Arizona's GM/ownership I would not want that liability on the books in those years when the team is hopefully back in contention. You might see them just eat $10M/year now and get rid of that deferred comp. That could fit well with a team in a contending window right now without the payroll capacity to take on a player like Greinke under normal circumstances. That market will not be clear until the big $ FA signings are completed.

Sorry. I should have included another link. You can't determine the annual contract without making assumptions to fill in the details Sportrac did not provide. I had to find articles that specifically addressed the deferred salary. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/12/09/greinkes-d-backs-deal-includes-62-5m-in-deferred-salaries/77077480/ They would have had to defer $119.5M to get to an annual payout of only 14.5M/yr.

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

Greinke gets $24M/yr now ($21M salary + 3M/yr signing bonus) and $31.5M deferred. Plus, an additional $2M if he is traded for a total of 105.5. Of course, the present value is less. Probably around $100M. See link below https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/arizona-diamondbacks/zack-greinke-407/

Greinke has 3 years remaining at 34.4. Therefore, if teams see him as being worth 25M/yr that would equate to 28.2M Arizona would need to kick-in to make his value equate. Of course, FAs don't require the trade of any prospects so I would hope we would not give up any prospects of any significance to trade for Greinke even with $28M coming back.. Spend the money on a free agent(s) that is not as likely to decline and not give up any prospects. Does not even need to be starting pitching. We have plenty of needs.

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.

If that's the case, I withdraw my objection but I still think it's good for next year, and probably not so good past next year.

From previous scouring of financial data I estimated the Twins had about $115M in operating expenses and players outside the 25 man. I would be shocked if we see $130M payroll again this year because I am assuming they still goof previous years revenue. I would guess the payroll is going to be $100-$110M. In other words the budget for FAs is going to be $25-$35M. I don’t think spending the bulk of the budget on Greinke is the best use of that budget. I would rather see the plethora of SP prospects we have auditioned in the stacker role and spend the money on BP, MI, and 1B ion that order. We can day dream about a world where where ownership has no interest in profit and we have a $150M payroll but there will be little validity in any scenario cast from such a dream.

I did not ask you to predict the future. I was quite specific in asking what are the odds. We have reams of historical data. You are a serious fan that knows quite well what the odds are so it's not a fair response IMO when you say you can't predict the future. You do have a point that Corbin does not have a track record that gives great confidence. Perhaps another player is a better alternative but none of this changes the inevitable ... Greinke is already well past the normal prime years and the odds of elite performance at ages 36-38 are very low.

You tell me. What percentage of the time do SPs decline significantly during their age 36-38 season. I guess it's possible my perception that it is almost certain is flawed but most SPs don't even make it to their age 36 season because they have declined beyond the point of being viable. There were people that insisted we should sign Shields too. I know my perception is not off in that case because his numbers were among the very worst in the league. Sure, there have been a few exceptions but are you really asserting these are not relatively rare exceptions and the norm is not significant decline? Arizona's goal no doubt will be to get a high ceiling player(s) that will contribute significantly to the building a contender. Signing a SP that is most likely to decline is not a good strategy for building a sustainable contender that's why they would trade him. It's a strategy to be better next year with the likely outcome it makes you worse in the future.

He was 3.5 WAR in his age 35 season. What are the odds he does not regress in each of the coming three seasons and what are the odds he produces 5 WAR over his age 37 & 38 seasons? If Arizona eats $10M/year and If the players you trade for him never contribute in a meaningful way, it's a decent deal if he does not decline much. It would make WAAAAAY more sense to offer Corbin such an obscene amount that even the Yankees would not match. At least we would not leverage our future for a pipe dream of putting together a contender this year.

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.