Major League Ready

I think there are two points I am trying to make here that you are not considering. This team is still very young and developing. They also have a number of prospects that could step-up very soon. Obviously, there is always risk with prospects as well as the current young core getting better. However, this seems like a reasonable expectation given our young core and the depth of our prospect pool. The 2nd point is that if our young core does not step up it won't matter because they are not as good as the young core of our primary competition. Houston's young core or even New York's young guys without considering they just traded for Stanton and have massive revenue. Boston also has great young players and a massive budget. The Angels are also looking better. We should also keep in mind that next years FA class could shift the balance of power and that shift is likely toward to the markets with the revenue to afford their massive contracts. A point I failed to make directly is that not every free agent SP is heading into their age 32 season. His demand for a 6 year deal at this age can make this deal UGLY. Depending on your definition of mid-market and "major contract" these deals are extremely rare or non-existent for mid market teams. We just can't absorb several non-productive years the way a major market. However, there is the occasion opportunity with a 28 or 29 y/o. Granted, this further depletes the number of opportunities to sign FAs but that's how I think a GM in a mid to small revenue market has to play free agency. The way its been played so far is that GMs of similar revenue teams simply never sign this kind of player. 6 years might actually be the best approach but at a number close to the 140. Say something like 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 /25 | 12 with a 3M buyout the last year. 143 guaranteed which is an AAV of almost $24M. That's still really risky but at least the diminishes the impact in year 6 when he is likely of very little or no value. It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how much SPs decline years 32-37 and what percentage of them are above replacement after year 35. This information must have been published somewhere. Anyone know where that information can be obtained?

It's a fair point to say they might not be able to extend players. So, let me revise my position accordingly. At least try to extend a player or two before you spend $150M+ on a SP entering the decline phase of his career assuming he follows normal regression. Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender? The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree. If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnel with Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland. They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish. I did not say trade for a Darvish Type. What I am suggesting is that it might make more sense to spend it when the addition actually puts them in contention. It's a simple choice. Spend the money now on a guy who won't be very good for the last 3 years of his contract or retain the ability to spend the money when the player they acquire puts them in contention. It is true that day may never come but that approach is certainly no more risky than hoping Darvish somehow defies aging. Of course, that's not impossible. There have been a few SPs that have remained effective well past the norm. The odds just are not good.

Many of you absolutely ignore where "baseball experts" position this team relative to the rest of the league. This is not a team that is a one piece away from truly contending. Darvish alone does not come close to putting this team on equal footing with Cleveland. Therefore, we would still likely be playing for wildcard spot. Let's not forget the wildcard no longer means getting into the playoffs. It is the equivalent to a game 163. So, its a 50/50 shot of getting into the playoffs regardless of its position as the playoffs to increase fan interest. With Darvish, they would not even be among the favorites for a wildcard spot. They also would not be competitive with Houston, NY, and Boston. I am not suggesting they should not try to sign Darvish but the basic position here has been just sign him and worry about years 35, 36, 37, and maybe even 38 when we get there. I would rather they position this team for the next 10 years. The probability of Darvish being more than a 4/5 beyond 3 years is very low. I would much rather extend our core and have whatever (roughly $30M/year) to spend on a free agent(s) with a core that is still with us and in their prime. An alternative scenario under the assumption they retain our core players and maintain the ability to add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract. Darvish at the point is very unlikely to be a difference maker and our core will all be in their prime. Plus, it's reasonable to believe that a couple prospects rise up with all the depth we have we in the minors. Lewis, Rooker and others could be impact players by then. The point being the premise we are burning a year right now assumes we are a contender with him which we really are not. Darvish being slightly above replacement for 3 years of a six year deal is more probable than us be a contender with him. I would not go more than 5 years. Something like 5/140 structured 32 | 32 | 30 | 25 | 21. If it takes more than 5/140, take a look and compare the long-term implications of signing Cobb or Lynn. 4 years of Cobb/Lynn covers ages 31-34. Extend Buxton now while we still can and determine the other core player(s) to extend over the course of this season. Trade for a rental if the team exceeds projections enough to actually have a chance in the playoffs. Perhaps even find a Verlander type acquisition.

Well, I am not exactly sure what they need to do. You would think the owners/league would pursue and practices and policies that protect and grow the popularity of the game. Every other sport seems to think some form of control that limits the advantage of higher revenue teams is a good. The higher revenue teams don't have these long periods of mediocrity or worse.

The difference between the sophistication of analysis on baseball statics and the crudeness of conclusions when it comes to baseball finance and spending. There are teams that generate $100M more, even $200M more in revenue than these teams. Yet, the conclusion as to their reason for not spending like the teams with a great deal more revenue is that they are cheap. Does the person or household with 80K of income have the same spending habits as the man/woman/household with $150K income? Is the 80K guy cheap because he does not drive as expensive of a car or because he lives in a less expensive home. Cmon guys, let’s use just a little common sense.

The Royals were spending pretty much every dime of revenue they earned according to the revenue reports. They did not refuse to play. They could not afford to play at the high end. Do you refuse to drive a 100,000 Mercedes or is the problem you can't pay for it? The Royals are a good example of going all-in trading away future assets for the right now and in the process shorting their window. How can you possibly say they maximized or extended their window? They had one wildcard year where they were a decent team that got hot for the playoffs followed by one dominant year. The next two years they were 500 when their core was at the start of their prime years. One dominant year is certainly not maximizing your window. Jimmer is right that they never make the playoffs without Shields and Davis. It’s also true they were a considerably better team the year after Shields left, They won the division and had one of the most dominant teams in MLB. They did not even manage a wildcard spot the first year and only managed a wildcard spot the second year with Shields and were two innings away from getting absolutely nothing out of giving up 5 years of Myers and 6 years of Odorizzi. They got a one-game playoff for Myers and Ordorizzi. They made the most (almost) of that opportunity but you sure as hell don't trade those assets for a one-game playoff. I am sure someone will say they would but anyone who has ever run an organization would say never in a million years. They were a team on the rise that pushed their chips in a little early and expended to many assets to extend their window.

I see your point but the scenarios are never go to be exactly the same. I think in a macro sense the Shields trade has to value in terms of validating this comparison. As a matter of fact, they were better after Shields was gone. If anything it is evidence that their team was still developing as I believe to be the case with the Twins. You certainly have a point about the good fortune of having Kluber blossom into a star. We have a lot pf assets with this potential. The real problem here is that a lot of people want it IMMEDIATELY. That would be nice but if it were realistic the balance of power would be constantly shifting. The process is can expedited when a team has great revenue but they most influential variable is the development of talent even for teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs. Even with there enormous revenue the players putting them at the top are primarily home grown.

I am not sure where you are going with this ... Mike's position is that the Twins can't be successful without playing in the high end" of free agents. Neither the Royals or the Indians got there best players via top end free agents. If your point is the Twins don't have assets to trade and the only way to get there is free Agents, I would remind you that the trades that catapulted the Indians were trades for under valued assets like Kluber and Bauer. They did not trade up top tier assets to acquire them. There other top players were drafted or international signings. The Shields trade did not put the Royals over the top. They did not make the playoffs the 1st year and were a wildcard team that got hot the 2nd year. They were still on the rise when that trade was made and were definitely better after he left. Am I not understanding something else you are trying to bring to light?

The most successful team of late in our revenue bracket has been Cleveland. Did they play in the high-end of the market? Certainly not in pitching. Yet, they are amongt the best in MLB. They did sign a couple of fairly expensive FA position players in Swisher and Bourne. Swisher was mediocre and certainly not a difference maker and Bourne was a bust. The Royals had some success and never signed anyone that could be considered a high-end FA. I They traded for Shields but were better after he left. They got nothing at all out of the first year. Is it possible they could have been even better and extended their window had they traded for Shields as a 2 month rental like they did with Cueto and not given up Myers. What if they had instead traded Myers for a couple good SP prospects? It's speculative but it's hard to argue that could have turned out much better for them. I just gave you two examples of teams with similar revenue that won the world series in the past 5 years without "playing in the high end" of free agency. Can you give me an example in the past 10 or even 15 years of a team similar to the Twins in revenue who won or even made it to the world series where a key player was a "top end" free agent? I am not sure you can because the list above illustrates the top end free agents are signed by teams at the top end of the revenue spectrum. Therefore, you have taken a position in direct opposition to the approach taken by every GM of every team with equal or less revenue as compared to the Twins. With all due respect, I doubt you have figured out something this collective group has failed to understand. I realize that what's sports fans do but that adds no merit to the position.

Here is the info. I had it in a spreadsheet so the formatting is horrible. I included 4 year contracts in the years there were not any 5+ year deals to FAs. Year Player Yrs Amt AAV Team Rev Rank NOTES: 2015 Lester 6 155 25.83 Cubs 6 2015 Scherzer 7 210 30.00 Nationals 8 2014 Tanaka 7 155 22.14 Yankees 1 Does not include posting fee 2013 Greinke 6 147 24.50 Dodgers 6 2013 Hyun-Jin Ryu 6 36 6.00 Dodgers 6 Does not include posting fee 2013 Sanchez 5 80 16.00 Tigers 9 Resigned with previous team 2012 Darvish 6 60 10.00 Rangers 10 2012 Wilson 5 77.5 15.50 Angels 7 Signed a huge TV deal in 2011 2011 Cliff Lee 5 120 24.00 Phillies 6 2010 Lackey 5 82 16.40 Angels 8 2010 Arguelles 5 7 1.40 Royals 27 Total of $7M 2009 Sabathia 7 161 23.00 Yankees 1 2009 Burnett 5 82.5 16.50 Yankees 1 2008 Silva 4 48 12.00 Mariners No contracts of 5+ yrs in 2007 2007 Vito 7 126 18.00 Giants 8 2006 Kei Igawa 5 20 4.00 Yankees 1 2006 Meche 5 55 11.00 Royals 27 2005 Martinez 4 51.7 12.93 Mets 3 Highest contract of 2005? 2004 Colon 4 51 12.75 Angels 7 No contracts of 5+ yrs in 2004 2003 Glavine 4 42.5 10.63 Mets 3 2002 Smoltz 7 72 10.29 Braves 7 Resigned with previous team 2002 Park 5 64.4 12.88 Rangers 10 2001 Hampton 8 121 15.13 Rockies 21 Traded to Braves in 2003 2000 Mussina 6 87 14.50 Yankees 1

Fair enough. I understand where you are coming from. When I looked into this I went back to 2000 because the context of my point is that this is very rare so why do we expect it. Going back further not only provides more data it is central to the point Your point about the small sample supports this position. There has been one or two pretty much every year and they are signed by the largest revenue teams. This is hardly a surprise. I am pretty sure I save the information I put together. I will post it again if I am able to find it in 3 minutes or less. It's just not worth much effort because I have made the point ad nauseam and the point is completely ignored or the response Chief gave that this has been debunked when the debunking is two examples The fact that there are two example basically proves the point. However, One is a team that just landed a $1.5B contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay the entire contract and then some.

I did ... about two years ago. Instead of just trying to blindly support a position I actually went out and looked at ALL of the date. I must admit I missed the Mike Hampton example. It's the only actual reasonable example of any team in a similar revenue position signing such a player. Every single contract was by a top 10 revenue team. The Nationals might have been 11th. As I recall, one source had them 9 or 10th and another 11th. Of course, I am omitting Arizona because of the TV contract and I missed Hampton. That is the totality of the this type of contract signed by teams of equal or less revenue. BTW ... How did Zito and Hampton pan out. You are not helping your point. These two were deals were disasters. I can see still kind of hoping the Twins sign a big name even when without really having all the facts serious baseball fans like the those who post here know many of these deals are huge busts. What I don't understand is the absolute instance that the Twins must do this to succeed. Is this how Cleveland, a team of similar revenue built a world series winner and sustained success? The royals were build primarily on high draft picks and the trading away of their best player. They never signed a big FA. They did trade for Shileds but was there potentially a better strategy. They did not even make the playoffs the first year and they were better after he left. Could they have perhaps sustained their success had they traded for a rental the first year they actually made the playoffs for much less in terms of prospects. Could they have traded Meyers for a couple of good SP prospects and retained Odorizzi.

If Darvish is holding out for 6 or even some report 7 years, Cobb & Lynn might be holding out for 5 years. Teams have realized how much these deals that go well past a players prime are hurting their ability to add pieces. Even the Yankees have to be really regretting the Ellsbury deal. Of course, it only takes one desperate (poorly run) team to make they holdout workout for the player. I would rather have Cobb at 4 years 18M (age 30-33) if Darvish requires 6 years (ages 32-37). Take the leftover money and extend one of our core. That would also leave plenty of money left over to extend another member of the core and then some. The window argument goes right out the window. That plan gives us a reasonable shot at fielding a very good team for a decade. That males a lot more sense to me that pushing our chips in.

Mike, A’s fans and Ray’s fans, and the other very bottom revenue teams know their team is never going to sign a top of the market (6-7 year contract) for a FA pitcher unless they are absolutely delusional. The Twins Revenue position is just enough higher that it seems plausible so a few Twins fans pray that the team would not be so cheap and just go for it. So, you have to ask yourself why they don’t and why does the national media always assume this type of approach is outside the Twin's economic viability? Is there something they just don’t understand? Do they not understand this is the best path to success as you and a few others have advocated here or is it the fans that don’t understand the model MOST LIKELY to achieve sustained success? If this were a consulting project, one of the first things I would look at in deciphering this sort of question is how does this specific company’s (team) practices compare to industry best practices. In this case, other teams have not utilized the practice you propose, at least not by a reasonably objective standard. There are really only two deals in the last decade that anyone can come up with as comparable. As I stated these deals are not reasonably comparable given the revenue advantages of those two teams used as examples. Is the problem that all of those GMs over the course of all of those years just did not see that signing this specific type FA is key to success or is the fans that don’t understand that the probability of success is too low that they opted to utilize other approaches? There is a ton of data available to make this decision. I would first look at the statistical models to determine the likelihood of regression at a given age. When looking at Darvish this means age 32 season through whatever age contract is proposed. Of course, we would also look at any other relevant data. For example, frequency of injury and recovery times at this age. Do you suppose the GMs, especially the newer GMs with an excellent business education and analytical support teams are looking at this in a more sophisticated fan? Are fans building these models or do you suppose they just want to get better as fast as possible? How many SPs (what percentage) have performed relatively close to their prime at ages 35-37 which is the case with Darvish? Shields is a reasonable example because his contract runs through his age 36 season. There were participants here who insisted James Shield would be as anyone else on our staff over the remaining 3 years of his deal. Nolaco and an fWar of 1 the first year and -1.1 last year. Streamer project .2 for next year. Based on the assumption you like to use that the money would go unused, who cares right. The problem with that assumption is that we have 3 or 4 young players that money could be used to extend into their prime years. I would love to see the calculation for Darvish’s estimated fWAR ages 35-37. I don’t know if Buxton would extend 3 years at $84M beyond whatever we would pay him over his arbitration years but I think that if calculated with all the relevant data available, extending Buxton s a much better risk. The bottom line is that mold as you call it is consistent across the league for team’s of similar revenue. Do you really think they are all wrong? If so, there is a multi million dollar/yr job waiting for anyone that can demonstrate to them there is a better approach.

It has never been debunked. You apparently think the Diamondbacks signing Grienke after signing a $1.5 Billion dollar TV deal debunks this position. Any of the other examples are teams resigning players like we did with Mauer. The only one that is somewhat reasonable to compare is the Nationals and Max Sherzer. The National have $40-50M more in revenue than the Twins which is obviously enough to pay that entire contract and have enough left over for a top bullpen arm so it certainly is not fair to say the Nationals and Twins have sufficiently equivalent revenue to make this a good comparison. So, let's sum up. One of the comparison's is a team that had just signed a $1.5B TV contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay for the entirety of the contract and then some. Even if they were reasonable comparisons, two instances for the 18 teams in the bottom 1/3 of the league for the past couple of decades would qualify as rare and these most certainly are not good comparisons. One is actually a ridiculous comparison given the TV deal.

Those were all 3 year deals and 2 of them were (9M/year. This is an absolutely irrelevant comparison to giving 1 player 6 years starting their age 32 season. The risk is spread out over three players and more importantly the Rockies are not on the hook for their age 35, 36, 37 seasons. I expect the Twins would jump all over Darvish for 3 years @ 30M/year. Not even remotely the same thing. The Diamondbacks had just signed a $1.5B TV contract that raised their revenue by almost $50M/year. azsnakepit.com/2015/2/23/8097375/arizona-diamondbacks-tv-deal-1-5-billion Hardly a fair comparison. We should expect the same if the Twins sign a mega TV deal.

The Diamondbacks just signed a TV deal that added $50+ million a year. I have made this same statement in the past and prefaced the statement with show me an example where the team did not just have a huge addition to revenue. I failed to do that here but it should go without saying that this is a very unusual circumstance. If the Twins add $50M to their annual TV contract I would have a vbery different position. Even if they had not gained this financial windfall, it would still have to be deemed a very rare thing.

To say no team is built entirely through the draft is so non-specific the point could not possible be argued. The question is can other team's outside the top 1/3 in revenue afford those non-productive years and how often do they sign the specific type of deal you suggest. Looking at the entire population of similar entities is solid analysis. When you do this with all of the teams of similar and less revenue than the Twins .... How many of them have signed FA pitchers (not resigned) to 6 plus years in the past decade? The answer is ZERO. You simply refuse over and over to accept this FACT. The cone back of would you rather have them pocket the money is equally inept. There are plenty of other ways to spend the money. Invest in scouting, analytics, and player development. That would only take a small portion of the money we are talking about. So, we could also do things like extend Byron Buxton 3-4 years beyond his arbitration years instead of insisting the Twins must act immediately because the core will be gone. We have a mountain of data that shows on average SPs are starting their regression around age 32. To take a hard stance as you have that a 6 year contract with such a player is absolutely the thing to do and justify it with that's just the cost is a product of passion not reason. That cost has been established because there are several teams who can absorb it 2 or 3 or 5 times and still have the Twins payroll left over.

That's a very one-sided point of view. There have been numerous players who received enormous contracts and failed miserably to deliver. Those payers don't give back a dime and the premise of them doing so is never even a remote consideration. The union would go nuts. It might even be a result of injury but why is it fair that the team absorb 100% of the risk associated with injury or non-performance. To say the owners should pay beyond market on a new contract with all the uncertainty associated with these big deals is wildly biased.

Why do people keep insisting that the window will close once Buxton and Sano are past their arbitration years. Why can't we extend one or both, What if Lewis comes up in a couple of years and is better than both of them? Then, we have Buxton and Sano in their prime plus Lewis. Why can't we have a pleasant surprise or two. Judge was not a top 50 prospect. Why can't Rooker or Thorpe or Graterol and Romero step up big time? The window does not need to close in 4 years.

There is absolutely no inference we should blow it up. My position has been consistent. Continue to develop and acquire young talent until we are actually seriously positioned to contend. (ie Houston)d) We have a long ways to go to develop the starting rotation and bullpen of a contender. Cole would help but our pitching staff as a whole would still have a long ways to go to be on par with teams that are serious world series contenders. Our strength is our young core which still has plenty of question marks. Santana, Dozier and Mauer could all be gone next year. This team is by no stretch of anyone's imagination in a window of contention and we do not have the revenue to buy it. Trading away long-term assets for players with 2 years of control is a great approach to mediocrity. It only makes sense when you need a final piece and we are not close to that point. Cole and the assets we gave up for him will be long gone when we are there or could have been there had we not given away the assets that landed him. Get Darvish and then trade for Archer if you are going to push in your chips. At least then you have 4 years to enjoy a better team and if the rest comes together we probably contend for a couple years.

Cole is a good SP but it would take him and Kershaw to give us a chance to win the division so we would be expending considerable assets trying to get a wildcard. The wildcard used to mean you earned a playoff series. Now it means you get a one game shot at getting a playoff series. In addition, the contending teams have better #1s so we would still be poorly positioned for a playoff run. Plus, we would still need a major overhaul of the BP to be even close to most of the contender's bullpen. So, expending good assets for 2 years of Cole makes no sense to me.

Question 1 - I think the odds makers have answered this question or we could ask ourselves what we need to add to be competitive with Cleveland first and foremost because you don't go all in for a chance to get to a 50% chance of getting to a playoff series. Then, we need to consider what we would need to be competitive with Houston, NY, and Boston. If we are honest, we could gut our farm system and max out our payroll and bot get there unless a few of the players we already have make big steps forward. Cole does nothing to position us for a playoff run so why give up inexpensive long-term assets for Cole? Question 2 - I don't really know but if we are to let him go it should be part of a package for a player that enables us to better compete in the playoffs.

The position/complaints vary but how was anything other than a major acquisition going to change our chances in the playoffs. If the complaint is that we traded Garcia and Kintzler, Again .... what is the point. We did make the playoffs so it's hard to understand the argument that they would have helped us make the playoffs. I am guilty myself of asking things like why didnt the go after Keven Maitan. Turns out we did and he did not want to come here. It's likely there are many of these scenarios that we don't find out about.

Because fans have wildly unrealistic expectations. We ignore that Detroit simply refused to trade Verlander within the division or that he would have refused to come here or perhaps did refuse to come here. Fans also have an extremely short-sighted view .... Damn the future, let's go all in on our 5% shot and make it a 15% shot even though it cost us our future. My firm has a a word for that when we evaluate management teams and practices. The word is incompetence. We ignore that the team DID reach the goal they would have hoped to achieve had they traded away important parts of the future. Instead, we increased assets while getting to the playoffs. If the premise is we could have traded for enough assets to win a series against the Yankees or Astros, someone needs to show me the plan that would have made that happen. The net was a gain in assets that should help future contention and we made the playoffs and somehow quite a few people see this as a failure.