Major League Ready

My post / commentary was not directed specifically at you or your post but the countless posts of a similar nature. Decisions to spend tens of millions of dollars are made in a fashion so grossly different than often depicted here that some of these posts boggles my mind. The contract you suggest is trivial is probably close to 10% of the payroll for entire 25 man roster. That decision has considerable consequence to the organization. An organization of any substance does not make those kinds of decisions because they have the budget, In most cases, the analysis of a 40M expenditure contains a thorough examination of any viable alternatives. The summary of the options compared every aspect of the alternatives and supporting documentation is provided to validate any calculations and assumptions. So, when you speak of spending somewhere between $30M and $45M you should have better justification than they have the money. I realize this is all just for fun but it’s incredibly insulting to the organization when you suggest the organization is second rate because they exercise due diligence when spending 10s of millions. Your conclusions about my Machado posts is also way off. It has nothing to do with cutting payroll. The entire point was this team has virtually no chance of being a legit contender in the next 2-3 years without adding impact talent. We have roughly $60M in payroll opening up but we also need to replace Mauer, Dozier, Sanatana, and Lynn. The point is what’s the smartest way to amass the necessary talent to contend? Machado is just an example. The real points is that If Escobar can be replaced by Gordon or Polanco, it is a poor decision to keep him when we have several other holes where the money would net a greater result.

I agree completely on Machado. Here is a long shot and we will be bidding against teams with considerably more revenue. The point is as much that his age, physical condition, and history of staying on the field make him less risky than most of the contracts exceeding 5 years. The fact that he is a position player is also less risky. I was definitely on-board with extending Buxton last off-season but he has been horrible offensively to the point where is defensive value is being off-set by his offensive ineptitude. I would not be making him our center fielder for the next several years until he proves a reasonable level of hit tool. Sano I would not even consider at this point. His inability or lack of desire to make any adjustments in his approach is a real concern. It sure looks like he has one thought in ever at bat which is to hit it in the upper deck in left field regardless of the game situation. His physique is also a major concern. It would be different if he showed up in great shape but thus far he has shown no willingness to work on his physical conditioning. Not a good bet long-term.

What's the plan. There is no logic, no substance, and your concern seems to be that they expend their entire budget. I see no thought as to how we build an actual contender. Building a contender is not done by looking at the immediate term, a single player or position or ONLY next year. I would be just fine if they spent half the money on Machado or as close as possible to that type of player and then used the other half of the money in 2020 after giving Romero, Gonsalves, Mejia, Busenitz, Jay and Gordon a chance to prove themselves at the ML level.

The post in question was a heck of a lot more substantive than the likelihood of this particular FA joining the MN Twins. You said “Fortunately, assuming a similar payroll to 2018, I don't see other needs that will preclude that modest level of investment”. I pointed out the specifics of the gap in talent between the Twins and the best team in the AL. There is an entire narrative about the width of that gap yet you chose to address solving that problem with a quip. When presented the mountain before us your response is quibbling about the Twins desire to spend wisely. Do you really think we don’t have needs that require more than a modest investment? We are 18 GB of NY and Boston and it’s still June. I think we are a very long way from contention. I like Escobar but he has had ½ of a season (2018) where he has played to the level of the multiple difference makers on each of the best teams. I don’t want to count on that level of performance. Keep in mind Polanco player like an all-star for half a season too. It’s going to taker a lot more than retaining Escobar to field a contender? It’s really easy to make a move that in isolation makes the team better, especially when not looking beyond next year. It’s a whole lot harder to fit all the pieces together to field a contender, especially when our team is at a significant financial disadvantage. I pointed out a number of needs that could easily consume $60M in payroll. Tell us how you are going to actually put a contender on the field and not use every dollar of the $60M coming off the books.

I think they need to add an impact bat if their lineup is going to come close to rivaling any of the other top teams. Obviously, there is still hope Buxton and Sano both pan out but I don't like the odds. Even with them "panning out" we still need another impact layer to be on the same plane as the other teams. I understand Machado is a long-shot but I would make a strong run at him and make other infield decisions after that effort. That would take at least half of the $60M available. We also could stand to invest significantly in the bullpen. A catcher won't help and I am not sure we have a replacement for Mauer. I would say that we could easily spend the remainder of the $60M on those assets. Assuming we are able to address the position needs and bullpen, it is quite questionable we will be able to build a contending starting rotation without add a FA. Berrios / Gibson / Odorizzi and Romero is probably going to be fine. That's a little thin for 2019 because it's tough to count on Gonsalves Pineda or May. We also lose Gibson and Odorizzi after 2019 so we have to think beyond next year when making these decisions that impact the teams for several years. Of course, we have already spent the $60M before determining if there will be a need for helping the starting rotation through FA. They may not spend every dollar next year but they will very likely need every dollar of payroll being shed if they hope to build a real contender.

Are you saying the team’s financial resources will be so vast as of next year that it does not matter if the team would be better off investing the excess in other assets? The one financial reality any fan of a mid-market team should learn to embrace is that our team needs to produce wins per dollar spent at a ratio of 50-70% of the other teams. We must invest better than the top teams if we are to assemble a team with equal talent. The available payroll is an asset for sure. Just remember the source of those funds and what it means to the team. This team is still in a position where contention requires a significant addition of talent. The sources are primarily Mauer, Dozier, Santana and Lynn. Those players have been important to the Twins and replacing their contribution through free agency would absorb the available funds. The relative ability to invest in free agency or player retention is a product of how well the team can insert low cost players in place of players that are substantially increasing in cost.

I understand there is half a season to go. However, it has become quite apparent this team should not be confused with a contender. This team would be 18 games back in any other division of the American League. The two guys (Buxton/Sano that were supposed to be the core going forward look horrible. Therefore, I am not focused on what to do to make the 2018 the best possible team. To get even close to the best teams … Sano and Buxton would have to improve massively. Dozier would have to return to 2016 form and the bullpen would need a couple upgrades. Probably need an upgrade at Catcher too. That would still leave us short in terms of comparing to the best teams because they have better SP. Do we want to apply Band-Aids and hope the Indians play significantly below their ability or do we want to do what’s necessary to close the gap in talent between our team and the top teams in the league. I am hopeful Dozier gets hot for the next month and brings back a “Gregorius” for us. We have quite a few guys that could go I just don’t see any of them bringing back much except Escobar. The players we get may not even be part of the future but traded for required pieces. To miss the opportunity to add assets would be a mistake.

I Love Escobar as much as the next guy but would they be better off with Escobar at 2B assuming a cost of roughly $10M/yr or Polanco at 2B and the $10M invested in a back of the bullpen arm or Catcher? I think Escobar at 3B and Sano at 1B/DH makes sense too.

Would he not be the logical replacement for Dozier next year and Gordon plays SS? Plus, Dozier will be traded in a month if he improves enough to garner any interest.

That's an exaggeration. It won't likely be amputated for at least 6 weeks.

We will need move Sano to 1st after we get Machado this winter. He would be the mega dollar free agent I could get behind. We would have a great IF for several years. In a couple years it would hopefully be Sano/Gordon/Lewis & Machado. We jsut need Buxton to get respectable in terms of hitting and we would be right there with the Yankees in terms of position players. Sano might flame out but we can hope Rooker pans out. Machado is in great shape. He has stayed healthy and you have to believe he is more likely to age well than some of the guys that got big deals and then declined relatively young. Yes, I am the first guy to point out some other teams have a decided revenue advantage but this is a monster contract I can get behind and we will have the greatest available payroll dollars since Target field opened.

My recollection was his salary was $20M/yr. and I did not remember they gave up 3 good prospects to get Verlander. My recollection was the prospects were marginal because Houston took on the salary. Looking at what Houston gave up, It would have cost us Romero or Gordon plus somethink like Kirilloff and Baddoo, maybe Rorvert instead of Baddoo but that cost makes no sense for a team that even with the addition of Verlander is not even close to NY, Boston or Houiston. So, having looked at the deal again, I would not have traded for Verlander. Great move when you are in Houstons position, absolutely stupid in the Twins position. We had a less than 10% chance of making the wildcard game which of course is a 50/50 proposition at best. Expending 3 valuable resources for a 10% shot gets you fired in the real world and baseball management practices are catching up to the real world.

I would have liked to get Verlander. The remaining years and price were reasonable. However, do you suppose the fact that our team was not nearly as complete and that he likely would be traded again was a major detriment in terms of getting to waive his no trade clause? Players don't like to uproot their life and they are not going to do so for a long-shot like our team was last year. There sure was a lot of complaining over something that had almost no chance of happening.

I was thinking the same. OPS+ for both Donaldson and Dozier's is way down from the past several years for Donaldson and the past couple seasons for Dozier. You bet would be safe. I can't imagine either one getting a 4 year deal. Donaldson is 33 next year. Dozier will be 32 and his WAR stands at .7 Dozier might only get a 2 year deal if he does not pick-up his play considerably. It will be interesting to see the length of the Harper and Machado contracts. Cano and Pujlos are signed contracts through age 40 and 41 respectively. Will teams make that same mistake? I doubt it but just how far will they go?

You have a point. I did not exclude the the best of the best. I agree. Superstars will likely not be handled any differently but that is a very small group and does not characterize the market as a whole. I also did not think it was necessary to point this out as it has been a consistent theme with the media. Machado and Harper will get crazy deals. I thought it was equally obvious draft picks are not an issue when signing a superstar. So, yes, superstars will likely not be handled differently but FA practices and contract length will most likely continue to follow the changes seen last winter.

One instance does not depict the leagues general position of GMs. Are you really going to take a position that the FO's around the league have become considerably less inclined to sign deals that take a player well past their prime. Every high profile baseball writer in the country pointed out this trend last off-season. You know damn well this is what has happened. You just are not willing to admit it because it points out the league has adjusted and you have not. Next time you ask a question of one of these writers ... Ask them if GMs are less likely to trade top prospects as compared to 10 years ago and if teams have become less inclined to sign free agents with draft pick compensation. The response might be ... is this a rhetorical questiont?

I just posted a list that clearly shows that the top players on the top teams were drafted or acquired while still prospects. How could you possibly say this position is unsubstantiated? For god sake, what type of substantiation would be more meaningful than to examine how the best players were examined. This argument has reached absurdity. Obviously, I have no data directly from GMs on their position on prospects. However, the increasing unwillingness to trade prospects or sign players with draft compensation has been discussed frequently on the baseball TV and Radio shows. The media is certainly of the opinion that GMs have become less inclined to trade top prospects. I guess you have a better grip on this then them as well.

So your position is that GMs have not become less willing to trade prospects or sign free agents with draft pick compensation tied to them?

I was 99% sure you would look at absolutely undeniable proof that the top teams were assembled from players who were drafted or traded for while still prospects and remain steadfast in your position. The fact that we don't know exactly which ones not only does not support a position that they are overrated, it highlights the need to hold on to them because we don't know which ones will reach or exceed their potential. The increasing unwillingness of GMs to part with prospects or give p picks to acquire free agents is well documented. In other words, MLB GMs don't agree with you. Do you suppose it's you or them that don't understand?

You are really in LF on this one. NY – Outside of Stanton, their best position players were either drafted of traded for before becoming established. Sanchez, Judge, Andujar, Torres, and Gardner were “just prospects”. Their best SP and three great relief pitchers were all prospects. (Severino / Betances / Green Holder) I guess NY’s FO did not have your insight. And, what were they thinking trading for Gregorius and Hicks. Houston – Their top six position players were drafted or acquired as minor leaguers (Altuve / Correa / Springer / Bregman / Stassi / Gonzalez Keuchel and McCullers were drafted. Morton traded for while a prospect. They did trade for Verlander and Cole after they established this incredible core. I hope the Twins will get to that point and do the same thing. Boston – Betts, Benintendi, and Bogaerts all prospects. They did sign Martinez to a five year deal. Smart move they are paying for Age 30-34 seasons. Would love to see the Twins make a similar deal. Boston did build their starting rotation through trades. Dodgers – They drafted this Kershaw guy. Buehler has been their best SP this year. Stripling was drafted by the Dodgers. I have not seen him pitch but his stats suggest he has been great. I am not sure what to call Alex Wood but he certainly was not a big name when acquired by the Dodgers. Their starting pitching staff were all “just prospects”. Matt Kemp has made a comeback and is one of their best position players. All of their other top position players acquired when they were just prospects. This includes Seager / Bellinger / Puig / Pederson / Muncy / Taylor / Hernandez / Grandal and Barnes. Anyone who continues to insist that prospects are not critical to building an elite team after looking at the construction of these teams is simply unwilling to acknowledge the obvious IMO. The position that they are overrated is a head in the sand position.

I would make that deal in a millisecond but I would think it takes a top 20 + Top 75 + two others with a reasonable shot at contributing at the ML level. I don't think we have any shot without including Lewis. In addition, Romero or Kirilloff + couple others. I would think the Yankees would be willing to pay big. They would be incredible with the position players they have under contract for several years. They could give up Florial who is an outfielder ranked the #37 by MLB.com. They are not likely to have any room in their OF for several years. Abreu a RHP ranked #64 and they have several other good candidates for the 3rd and 4th pieces. This would allow them to keep Sheffield (ranked #40) who they got in the Andrew Miller trade. The Yankees will be very tough to beat if DeGrom becomes available. Can you imagine Degrom, Severino, Tanaka, and Gray with that lineup and bullpen. Holy $#!%.

I am not certain the Indian will sustain their success. However, they have demonstrated how to build a team for sustained success. I hope the Twins follow a similar blueprint. The Indians built their team through shrewd trades for unproven players, the draft and international signings. They did not trade away top prospects or sign any expense free agents until they were poised to contend. They have Lindor on a rookie contract through 2022. Ramirez extension through 2022. Kluber and Carrasco extensions through 2012. Clevinger is on a rookie contract through 2023. They have (RHP) McKenzie who is a top 25 prospect and Bieber who is a top 100 prospect. They also have Meija who is a top ranked catching prospect (#11 MLB.com) This looks like a very good blueprint for sustained success to me. Like I said, contrasted to the Royals who many here praised, sucked for 20 years, had a couple good years and now look to be bad for several years, the Indians model looks pretty good. I stand by position that they have built a team that is likely to sustain success. The trade for Miller and the signing of Encarcion are moves I hope the twins will make when they get to the point of being contenders. The Indians trade for Miller would be characterized as a final piece. They were already one of the elite teams in all of baseball before trading for Miller and signing Encarcion. Miller was added at the 2016 deadline. It would be extremely hard to argue they were not ready given they made it to the World Series and took a great Cubs team to a 7th game. They signed Encarcion to a 3 year deal after winning 94 games in 2016. The combination of Miller/Encarcion helped them jump to 102 wins. The Indians FO demonstrated how a mid-market team gets great. If you think the Twins situation is remotely similar to the Indians in 2016 or the Astros when they signed Verlander, we will have to agree to disagree. You and some posters here are going to continue to be disappointed because there is not a GM in the league that would think our team remotely resemble the Indians or the Astros teams that made moves for “final pieces”. Even when they reached contention, the Indians did not sign any mega free agents. They made one trade (Miller) involving their top prospects (Frazier and Sheffield) for 2 ½ years of Miller when they were clearly a contender. At the time Frazier looked like a good but not great prospect. It just been this year that he has looked like he could be a very good player at the ML level. Sheffield was a 20 y/o at the time. He is now the Yankees #2 prospect. As it turns out the cost for Miller looks like it will be very substantial. It might end up being a bad trade given Miller pitched 5 inning in the 2017 WS and is out now. However, I still don’t have a problem because Miller is the type of addition you make when you have a contender. The bottom line is that the Indians are a product of drafting and trading for prospects and then adding the final pieces when the team was no doubt a contender and would be a contender and likely to remain one for a few years. Anyone who feels they can make a case the Twins are in the same position as the 2016 Indians... Have at it.

So what if Realmuto is great and the team is 500. Somehow you consistently fail to see the failure in trading away the players necessary to get the team to contention status. Then, trade prospects when it will actually make you a contender. If you plan is to get a little better now and hurt your chances of becoming an actual contender then go ahead and make this type of deal. Compare Cleveland to KC and Cleveland has a chance to remain good for several years. AFter 20 years of sucking and getting high draft picks, KC managed to make their window as short as possible.

You need to pay attention if you are going to claim to know my position. Paying for multiple years beyond a players prime is my objection. That has been the marketplace and guess what? The rest of the league has figured out it is an incredibly bad strategy. Do I really need to list all the mega failures and the majority that are complete failures are mediocre value. I would absolutely support a run at Machado if the contract does not run past age 35. Odds are better when it's not a pitcher and he is in excellent condition. Worst case scenario he ends up at 1st but he can likely stick at 3B for most of his career. The more accurate portrayal of my position on elite free agents is basically how hard is it to figure out you are going to lose a bidding war with a team with far more financial resource? Not to mention the players prefer the major markets. The other thing I have not been able to get through to you is that high performing players on cost controlled contracts enable a lower revenue team like the Twins to compete for free agents. It not only makes no sense to pull this trigger until you have those players in place, it assures you likely won't get to that point. Houston was at that point. I thought they did a masterful job. I keep asking you and others how this team can be considered to be at that point where another piece or two makes us true contenders. You keep saying how long do we have to wait. Go ahead and complain that it has taken to long to get there but how long it has been is absolutely irrelevant to when a team should start trading top prospects.

I am not going to look but didnt you say the same thing about LuCroy. That would have been an absolute disaster. Where did you stand on Tulo. That would have been the disaster of all disasters.