Major League Ready

I understand your focus and many others is next year. My focus is building a sustainable winner. The two are generally not the same which at least in part probably highlights our difference in opinion. I have had a front row seat in observing dozens of organization being derailed or marginalized by short-term focus. I often don't reply in the kindest of manners to this focus because 20 years of watching it fail (sometimes spectacularly) tends to form a firm opinion of such practices. You are correct that Mauer is not the solution. I thought I was clear that was a fall back position. Are you against signing one of the 3B free agents and moving Sano to 1B? Obviously, this scenario changes if Sano works his butt off to get in shape and turns things around offensively by the end of the year.

You have a point if the assumption is that we have to spend all of the available payroll immediately. The nature of strategic planning is long-term and specifically where assets are concerned the assessment should match the life of the assets. I assumed the dollars would get spent over the next couple of years unless the FO is willing and successful in pursuing Machado. We have many unanswered questions which include a number of pitching prospects that really should be auditioned next year. It would not be wise to commit all of the available dollars yet. There are a number of 3B prospects and it might make sense to move Sano to 1B. I would prefer a 245lbs version of Sano shows up for spring training and his approach / pitch recognition improves significantly but the depth of FA 3B might make that option a good one. If Sano flops, we have other options at 1B. It also would not be horrible to bring Mauer back on a 1 year deal if he is willing. We could also spend on the BP. We all know spending on the BP in free agency is risky but one legit late inning guy would be a nice add.

This makes faaaaar more sense to me, especially given we have 60M+ in payroll coming off the books. 1B is another chance in FA to upgrade our offense. The rest of the available payroll budget could get spent on SP and BP.

If you define a window as a possibility of winning the Central, yes, I would say there is a possibility in the next couple of years. If a window means being an actual contender, no, we are not in a window until the many things that need to get addressed are improved. We would be 20 games back in the east or west. Competing with the real contenders would require considerably better starting pitching, an overhaul of the bullpen, replacing Dozier at 2B, replacing Mauer at 1B, not to mention any hope of contending would require Buxton and Sano to both sustain a level of play they have shown at times but they have not shown a glimpse of that play this year. Oh and catcher too. Trading long-term assets in order to have Realmuto for 2019-20 is a horrendously poor plan. If the team does not sort all of these problems you have given away the guys most likely to help the team when this does get sorted out. If it does somehow all go our way .... FANTASTIC, there will always be players that can be added by trading away great prospects. At least at that point we will know with much greater precision what we need to add. The cubs traded away Samardzija when they were on the brink. Why, because 6 years of Russel is waaaay better when you have not quite arrived but are expecting to contend soon. I bet Arizona wish they had not traded away Swanson before they were ready. Short-term focus is a good way to really suck long-term.

I don’t know how screwed up a team has to be before we should accept they are not in a window but how anyone can conclude we are just a player away from contending with NY, Boston, Houston, and Cleveland. We have one proven SP that will be here after next year, the bullpen is a mess and the guys who were supposed to be our superstars are in the minors. Yes, lets trade away or top prospects for a catcher that will be here for 2 years and hope all of what ails this team will be fixed by opening day next year. Who cares if trading away those top prospects could result in continued futility for several years. Let’s go all-in on next year. We have control of the core players through 2021-2022. This team can also afford to keep Berrios and one of Buxton or Sano if we have cheap talent like Kirriloff, Lewis, Graterol, etc coming on board as the price of some of our core players goes up. Managing our assets to be all-in on a 2 year window is a very bad idea. I would prefer a plan that at least has a chance of sustained success. Luckily, Falvey and Levine have been very consistent in their message that sustainability is a primary objective so I trust we won't see them pushing all their chips in, especially when we have a bad hand. You can't bluff when there are several great teams that are set-up for long-term success.

Do you understand Escobar is a free agent at the end of the year?

They were having better ABs the last couple innings. I think taking him out was motivated by making sure his confidence remained in tact. It was a good outing to build on and that was more important than getting one more inning.

We are not as far apart as it may seem. My primary point is that the answer is getting better at acquisition and development of young talent. The secondary point is that short-term assets like Gibson can't possibly factor in to long-term success. They are gone after next season. If there is a 3rd point to be made here that would be the financial realities of being a mid market team. Fielding young talent is essential to the ability to retain talent and extend a winning window or to have the capacity to add free agents. You don't resign Escobar when you have Gordon ready to take his place. Assuming you pay market value, you fill that role with a league minimum player and add a player of equal value to Escobar that fills a need. Then, the next question is what do we get for Gibby. I think he has proven he is a different player starting the 2nd half of last year. Maybe the market won't see it that way. I am with you if that's the case. Why trade him for a guy who projects to be a back of the rotation SP. We have quite a few of those guys. If you can get a guy like Sheffield or better, that trade should contribute to winning for several years. It's not a good idea to pass on the chance to add that type of asset because we want so badly for next year 's team to be better. That's a good way to remain bad. We are also caught in a wait and see mode. We have a number of pieces that COULD come together but that's a lot of "ifs". So, it does not make sense to press reset but I suggest we take advantage of any opportunities to add assets while we wait to see what happens with Buxton, Sano, and even Romero. Will Rooker become part of the solution in the next year? Will Gordon prove to be part of the solution. Is Polanco the player we saw the last half of 2017 or was that aided by PEDs. That's alot to figure out so let's not forego opportunities to add more long-term help because if all the stars and moon aligh, we can be fringe contender next year.

I have not read the Fangraphs article but I think the $8M/WAR is the average cost of acquiring 1 WAR though free agency. This is used by many as a measure of value. Your post demonstrates that 1 WAR is not worth $8M. What this really tells us is that building through free agents has been a relatively poor strategy. Of course, there are some free agents (like Lester) that provide the final pieces to a contender. Let's hope the Twins spend the available money wisely and outperform the $8M/WAR productivity measure.

There is a very long list of things that need to be improved / sorted out before this team becomes a contender. The loss of Dozier and Mauer is just a start. Our two guys that were supposed to be the key guys are in the minor leagues, our bullpen is a mess, and most of the SPs are gone after next year. Why would we want to manage our assets based on the assumption ALL of these thjings are going to turn around next year? Managing this teams assets as if we are going to be a contender next year is the kind of blind faith driven by fanaticism. A guy that can produce for 6 years has waaaaay more value at this point than having Gibson for 1 more year. Go get a free agent SP next year. You have Berrios / Romero / Odorizzi / FA / and one of several others for the 5th spot. If you can get Sheffield from the Yankees or someone similar, in the next couple years your SP staff looks something like Berrios / Romero / Graterol / Sheffield and the FA if they are still here or one of Gonsalves / Thorpe / Stewart / etc.

That's why we have a lot of them. How is this relevant. Have you somehow come to the conclusion that all of the best teams are not built around prospects or do you think it was just luck? I am really curious to hear how you look at the construction of NY, Boston, Houston, and Cleveland and not conclude drafting and development or trades acquiring prospects without giving up key talent (Indians / NY) are the most important aspects of building a contender, especially for teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

For starters, keep in mind the point I was countering was that "prospects are fools gold". The focal point of my post was that NY, Boston, Houston and Cleveland are built primarily around prospects. It would appear you assumed I meant the prospects primarily came from trades which was not remotely close to the intended message. You apparently assumed when I said "I would add" there was a sell off component to rebuilding that meant it was the primary catalyst. I used KC as a specific example and the players netted in the Greinke trade. I am not sure how that indicates all the draft picks and international free agents were not the most important aspect of their rebuild. When you have our budget, draft or trading for prospects and developing them is crucial to being able to afford to retain them when we are in a window. It also provides the payroll room like we have next year to add free agents. People complained when we let Cuddyer go too. That compensation pick resulted in Berrios. It's easy to figure how to put the best possible team on the field next year which is often the focus of fans. Unfortunately, building a contender requires a long-term approach and the short-term focus of most fans is often detrimental to sustained success.

There are 4 incredibly elite teams right now in the AL. They were all built primarily around prospects. Obviously, the Yankees and Redsox used their considerable revenue advantage to add even more established talent. I would add that if you look at the rebuild of mid or small market teams there is generally a component of selling off top talent for prospects. KC traded Greinke for Cain and Escobar. Houston traded every player they had with any tenure. Their entire payroll got down to around $30M. Oakland amassed the best record over the past 25 years of any team outside the top 10 in revenue and better than some top 10 teams by trading very good players for prospects. Same is true in Basketball even though they have a salary cap. Front offices are evolving. They are hiring staff with the education and experience to use hard data and build operating models. The new FO is not going to follow sentiment. In the case of mid and small market teams they understand the financial realities that many fans simply will not accept. The FA market last year was witness to their understanding of building through prospects and the handful of incredibly good teams dominating MLB is glaring proof of the need to build around prospects. If the Twins or any other mid market team do a great job acquiring and developing prospects, they will have enough payroll to add (not keep) proven talent. They can't afford a JCS or to build an entire SP staff like Boston but they can add significant talent. You keep the talent once you are in a window of contention. To continue to look at this team as a contender is "fool's gold".

I am right with ya. Closer is always better. My thought was that we don't have a trade chip that will net a high ceiling AA prospect. EE might if he stayed hot until the deadline but he has been off the last 50 or so ABs. He would need to heat up again. Lynn was looking good of late until today. Let's hope he is great in his next 5 starts and gets traded. I would think Dozier would have to go nuts for the next month to bring that kind of prospect.

Seems like it! His profile is so unusual that I would like see him a few times before passing any judgment but at least he gives us something interesting to watch.

Normally, I would agree that you can’t have too much pitching. However, next year they have Berrios / Gibson / Odorizzi and in all likelihood Romero set. That leaves Pineda, May, Gosalves as the best candidates for the 5th spot. That still leaves Slegers, Littell and couple other like Stewart and Thorpe for depth. Graterol won’t be here next year but we can call him depth in the system. We should also keep in mind we have $60M or so coming off the books and a FA SP is in the cards. Unless we actually land Machado (5% chance) I would think we sign a starter unless two of Romero / Gonsalves / Mejia shine the 2nd half. Wouldn’t it make more sense to take a shot at a high upside guy over a depth guy at this point? The top teams are so far ahead of us that another Mejia will not move the needle.

He was a 1 WAR player in 98 IP and 21 appearances. Hopefully he has improved his control and whatever else they sent him down to work on. Seem pretty reasonable to believe he will be a 2 WAR SP and I think there is some additional upside. He was already in AAA when they traded for him. We have enough depth that I would rather they trade fort a A+ SP with more ceiling if possible.

Mike, any professional has job demands that require preparation. When a non-athlete professional does not bother to prepare when ample time has been provided, the people accountable for the the organization are going to conclude that their level of commitment is not adequate. In this case, the demand is to eat healthy and exercise. Compared to what many of us need to do in preparation this is a absolute walk in the park and he had 5 months to do it. If there are medical reasons Sano that make it difficult to drop the weight that's a different issue but it's seems a very reasonable assumption the media would have reported it. So, what reasons other than he did not care enough to get in shape are reasonable alternatives?

The only way the QO strategy makes any sense is if he keeps up the 900 OPS pace because another team would have to believe he is going to play much closer to that level than his career numbers if they are going to give up a draft pick and pay enough to lure him away from a QO. The last 2 weeks his OPS is 664 and and Wrc+ is 69 with a 209 BA. If he plays to his careers number for the remainder of the year, he could be signed for 2 years at very close to the QO or 3/24. His leadership does has value but people are giving far too much weight to a 2 month hot streak.

That would be very interesting. It should lineup well with the arrival/readiness of the great IF prospects we have in the minors. It would also depend on the state of Sano and what other holes we need to fill so I could not offer an opinion until free agency begins.

Probably none. I thought it was obvious the assumption is that they invest beyond 1 year deals because that type of RP is not taking a 1 year deal. They certainly have the budget.

A market price of a combined $17M suggests quite strongly that the market has concluded these would be two very good bullpen arms, right. We are not talking about $1M/year or $2M or even $5M/year so yes I believe the most reasonable assumption would be that the two BP arms would provide significant value. If you believe Escobar is going to be a 4 WAR player going forward as he has the 1st half. Then, signing him to a 3 year deal would be very smart. However, he has averaged 1 WAR the previous 6 seasons. I think that's a very bad bet. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. Signing a guy who has averaged 1 WAR up to now for $17M when you have a player that should be more valuable waiting at AAA would be grossly incompetent IMO. The odds are significantly better the net of Gordon and the 2 BP arms provide more value is quite good. Plus, we have not discussed the value of the trade piece. If that player is even a good BP arm the deal swings considerably in favor of moving on.

Agree + what if this wake up call results in a 250 lbs or even 240 version of Sano. What if he does a "Kevin Love / Shabazz Muhammad and comes back with a transformed body. Could he be a league average 3B in that kind of shape? I would think so but it's obviously speculative. I would be very hopeful for next year if Sano reports to camp at or below 250 and Polanco plays somewhere near the way he did the 2nd half of last year. He was a 2 WAR for the 2nd half. Let's Gordon here for the 2nd half. Get a good look this year a determine what to do with 2B this winter. If Gordon looks good, let Escobar go and invest in a 1B, the bullpen and perhaps a SP dependent upon how Romero, Mejia, and Gonsalves look the rest of the year. Trade Lynn and Santana for whatever you can get to make room for these three to get playing time. I would feel a lot better about our chances next year if we can get 2 of Romero, Mejia, and Gonsalves at least somewhat established this year.

Do you believe EE would add enough value over Gordon to make up for investing the $17M in two bullpen arms or a 1B if Sano does not end up bouncing back?

It's obviously of no value to move EE If we can't get a prospect with value. I have not seen anywhere here just get whatever you can because he is a free agent. EE might not be in demand but he has been a more impactful player than Nunez was before being traded so it would not be a shock if someone ponied up if he remains hot through the All-Star break. This is just one of the variables necessary to clarify before trading or not trading makes sense. There does seem to be a presumption that trading him now would have a significant negative impact on resigning him next year. If handled correctly, and if he really does have some loyalty / wants to be here, I would surely hope he would understand it makes a great deal of sense for the Twins to rent him to another team while giving him a shot at post season play. There is also a presumption that EE>Gordon + whatever player they could reinvest the $10M/year or whatever salary we are assuming to be realistic. I am not sure how to evaluate that equation because EE's numbers the 1st half of this year are a significant anomaly. I would hope Gordon would produce better than EE did through 2017 over the course of his 1st years. Then, what if the prospect is a 2-3 WAR pitcher with 6 years of control. This decision could swing wildly in favor of Gordon + FA + Prospect. Isn't this exactly what we need to do to bridge the gap with the several teams that have significantly more talent that us?