Major League Ready

Everything you have pointed out is very fair. It would have actually lowered the dollars paid per WAR had I used 2 years and I would agree that teams are definitely going to weigh the newest information more heavily. Had I added some common sense in cases in terms or whether to use the last year, two years or 3 years, the amount per WAR would have come down. I only used the 3 year approach because it was conservative and others could not suggest I was cherry picking. The point I am making is not this granular. It's this simple. It is crystal clear that a model paying $8M per WAR is not sustainable for even the largest market teams. To say its reasonable or sustainable for all of the teams in the league is to ignore many economic and business principals. I guess it's this simple .... If the MN Twins or any team of similar revenue produce at a rate of one WAR per $8M, the probability of success is extremely low if FAs are relied upon to any significant degree.

OK Let’s look at ALL of the players who received contracts of 3 years or greater last year. That would be the definition of assessing market value, right. I used these players because they obviously were the best positioned of all of the free agents. I also picked the best players because I don’t think most TD participants are much more interested in the Johnny Cueto types as opposed to Jason Castro. Yoenis Cespedes … 4.4 | 27 | 6.136 Jason Castro … 1.43 | 8.167 | 5.711 Josh Reddick … 2.5 | 13 | 5.200 Justin Turner … 4.23 | 16 | 3.783 Ian Desmond … 3 | 14 | 4.667 Dexter Fowler … 3.1 | 16.5 | 5.323 Edward … 4 | 20 | 5.000 Mark Trumbo … 1.65 | 12.5 | 7.576 Kendrys Morales … 1.4 | 11 | 7.857 Ivan Nova … 1.4 | 8.666 | 6.190 These 10 top free agents averaged 5.74M per war. It’s probably an anomaly but Trumbo / Morales & Nova brought that average up. The other 7 players averaged 5.12M per WAR, RPs Bret Cecil … 1.13 | 7.625 | 6.748 Aroldis Chapman … 2.666 | 17.2 | 6.452 Kenley Janzen … 2.333 | 16 | 6.858 Mark Melacon … 1.8 | 15.5 | 8.611 Average … 7.167. Top BP arms got a premium last year. I suspect this average comes down if you look at the masses but I am not interested enough to look them all up. Is the market data from all of the FAs able to get 3 year contracts adequate evidence for you?

Agree completely while qualifying that the 5 or 6 largest markets have enough incremental revenue to absorb contracts that go terribly bad as long an equal number of them work out. All we need to do is observe which teams sign these enormous contracts. Small market teams rarely (almost never) sign these kinds of deals. It is very obvious that mid and small market GMs agree with you.

A better measure of market value would be what free agents actually get paid comparted to their average WAR for the previous 2-3 years. Here are examples of contracts from 2016 & 2017. I mostly used players in their prime to get a reasonable measure and averaged their WAR over the previous three years to determine market value/WAR.. I did use David Price at age 32 and I omitted the year Cueto had only 60 IP. I threw Jason Castro in just to add an example of that type of player. Year | Average War | AAV | AAV per WAR 2017 Yoenis Cespedes … 4.4 | 27 | 6.136 2017 Jason Castro … 1.43 | 8.167 | 5.711 2017 Josh Reddick … 2.5 | 13 | 5.200 2016 Jason Heyward … 4.86 | 23 | 4.733 2016 David Price … 5.63 | 31 | 5.506 2016 Johnny Cueto … 4.43 | 21.67 | 4.891 2016 Justin Upton … 3.46 | 16 | 4.624 It is clear that the market does not value free agents anywhere near $8M per WAR. These players averaged 5.257. My guess is that RPs might bring this number up a bit. Cespedes missed some games which brought down his salary/WAR. If we use 2 previous years instead of three his value is 5.55/WAR which is very consistent with the others. BTW … Mike Napoli got 7M on a 1 year deal in 2016. That’s about the best comp I can come up with for Mauer. Totally different player but a similar caliber 1B.

This valuation has been thrown around here quite a bit. Is one WAR worth $8M or is one WAR the average production of free agents? Those are two quite different things. If we attempted to build a team on this premise, the payroll required to build a 98 win team would be roughly $400M. Our team has to average about $1.5M/WAR. No team can actually afford a $400M payroll, therefore I don't think one WAR is actually worth $8M, especially to teams with 50 or 60% of the top teams.

How are you calculating this value?

The national media seems to think NY is the front runner by a substantial margin over Texas and the Twins are a side note. I sure hope Falvey and Lavine demonstrate some great recruiting and those national media types can use that egg on their face for breakfast!

I hope they are out trying to trade some of the guys we have been talking about that need 40 man protection for international dollars. You would think that's feasible given these players are considerably closer to contributing at the ML level and not as big of a crap shoot as 16 y/o international players. It still might not matter. I would have to think NY offers more appeal and more income potential in endorsements.Our hope might be allowing him to DH if NY won't make the same promise.

It doesn't but I doubt the OP meant that Buxton was responsible for all the improvement. They were a 103 loss team looking to develop their core. Buxton and Polanco were as bad as they we last year for part of the season and then looked like different (much better) players) Rosario improved substantially after the first month. Hildy and Busenitz provided substantial production the last 1/23 of the season. Mejia was looking pretty good before the injury. This is what you do when you lose 103 games but have a core with a bright future. You don't make moves as if you are assembling the final pieces of a team contending for a world series appearance. Do you really need a DH when you are trying to get ABs for your developing core, especially when one of them has potential (Vargas) What FA SP would you have added. The FA Class of SPs was so poor only two were able to contracts longer than 2 years. One being a 37 year old Rich Hill. Is that the player you add to a 103 loss team you are looking to rebuild. The other was Ivan Nova. Would anyone had thought he was a significant part of a rebuild?

At that point he will be entering his age 31 season with 7 remaining seasons at $29.7M/year. I would think he would have to remain perfectly healthy and maintain near the career high level of performance he had last year to have a chance to sign for more. History would suggest that scenario has less than a 50/50 shot so if that's not a major risk with $200M on the line, I am not sure what is. As fan's we address these situations as if we are playing with monopoly money. I seriously doubt you could find a single MLB GM who approach this assuming Stanton will opt out.

There are a coupe things you fail to acknowledge. One, all of these players mentioned had equivalent or higher WARs in their prime. They all fell off dramatically by age 32 or 33. If Stanton follows the statistical mode, he will have 5 seasons at replacement level or slightly better. Carrying 36M of dead weight on the books for a modest revenue team almost assures mediocrity or worse for several years. Even Cabrera was slightly below replacement level last year at 34. Stanton’s deal goes through age 38. No, of course these situations are not identical but they don’t need to be to demonstrate that even these great players tend to decline rapidly. Therefore, the risk is quite certain and the key to assessing these contracts is how many years is the team likely to pay a premium for a player playing at roughly replacement level. Stanton is LIKELY to have 4-5 such seasons. Let’s call it $150M for replacement level play. There are a couple of teams that can afford to take that risk but the MN Twins are a long way from that level of revenue. The other basic premise I believe to be severely flawed is that 1 WAR/$8M is good. It would take a $400M payroll to build a 98 win team if constructed of free agents producing 1 WAR/$8M. That measure is the average and should not be construed as a target, especially for teams who’s revenue demands they are far more efficient per dollar of payroll than the largest markets. In fact, illustrates a low probability of success.

Holy crap how did I forget that one and yes my previous post clearly states we are not getting Kershaw. You are right however that next year's free agents do not have any top SP talent which makes Darvish and maybe even Arietta reasonable choices. Harper / Machado and Donaldson will be loving their good fortune that there are not any top SPs to suck up the available free agent dollars. The only problem is the other GMs are aware of this shortage and Darvish / Arietta likely get obscene money and enough years to make these deals really hurt if they don't pan out.

I would be OK with Darvish but I think Kershaw and Fernandez are considerably better SPs and Fernandez is considerably younger. If Darvish would actually tilt the tables such that we got Ohtani... sign me up.

2022 - Sano & Buxton 2023 - Kepler | Berrios & Polanco If you want to include Mejia, he is a FA in 2024 as are Hildy and Busenitz.

I might be putting too much weight on their trends but Arietta scares me. He will be 32 next year and already appears to be declining. Reminds me of Shields. If it takes a 5 year deal, it could really hurt our ability to compete when our core is at their best from 25-29 years old. Darvish does not seem to be in decline phase yet even though he is only 6 months younger. History would suggest it's still very risky but I prefer Darvish even though Arietta has been really exciting to watch in the past. Personally, I would look at a 2 year plan because I would not count on Santana after this year, Berrios still needs some seasoning, and we also need to audition Gonsalves and a few others. I would rather get Cobb or Lynn this year. They are two years younger and won't requires as many years. They will likely be 3 years younger at the end of their contracts which substantial reduces the risk associated with decline. Next year we have another $45M coming off if we don't exercise Santana's option. Next year will also be a very deep free agent class and we will have had another year to graduate prospects. Harper, Donaldson, Machado and several others are going to absorb big free agent dollars next year and we will be in a better position to compete for top tier pitching.

The age he was when he signed has absolutely zero relevance. He is 28 now and has 10 years left on his contract which takes him well past his prime for the last 4-5 years of the contract. History is very clear that any such deal has a high probability of failing. IMO pursuing practices that have proven to have a high degree of failure is incompetent. Crazy is not how I would describe management practices that avoiding trading premium assets for a player who's contract will cripple the club for 4-5 years if his performance is similar to almost every other player who ever signed such a contract. How anyone who looks at the list I just put up and determines this is a no brainer is hard to imagine. I would not sign him as a FA and I sure as he## would not give up premium assets. If I had the Yankees or Dodgers revenue, I might consider it if the prospects required did not include any B+ or better prospects. Allocating this amount of available payroll would also make it extremely difficult to address our greatest weakness (pitching). On that merit alone trading for Stanton would be incompetent.

Joe Mauer posted a 7.6 fWAR in 2009 and singed an 8 year extension. His average WARB for the past 7 years of that extension is 1.9 and 1.25 for the last 4 years. Albert Pujlos signed a similar contract in 2011 having averaged 7.28 fWAR over the previous 6 years. Since then he has a total of 7.6 over the course of six seasons. Last year he was -2 fWAR and they still have 4 years to go on that contract. Jacoby Ellsbury is very similar to Mauer’s contract and he has averaged almost identical fWAR to Mauer and he has 3 years remaining in which he will decline substantially if his production is typical of other aging players. Mark Teixeria averaged 3.9 the first 4 years of his 8 year deal and a total of 2.7 the last 4 years. (.675 fWAR/yr) So, he was not as good as Dozier for 4 years and then replacement level for 4 years. Ryan Howard’s extension was only 5 years but the Phillies ended up paying $125M for a negative fWAR (-2.3) and his best season during the extension was .4 fWAR Josh Hamilton got $123M for 3.4 fWAR. That’s 36M per fWAR and these deals are why the average cost per fWAR is $8M. ARod got $275M for 21.8 fWAR or $12.6M per fWAR so his deal was not so bad compared those mentioned above. Stanton might be good for several more years but history has shown that a very high percentage of these 7+ year deals to be an enormous bust. If you are the Yankees or Dodgers you can have 3 deals like this bust and still have the Twins payroll left over. I really can’t think of one off the top of my head that has panned out well. It makes a lot more sense to me to extend our young guys until they are 30-32. It’s a lot less risky to pony up a little extra during their arbitration years for a couple more prime years than to pay these guys huge money well past their prime.

What I am trying to ask is Fangraph’s saying that 1 WAR is worth $8M or are they saying the average production from FAs is 1 WAR per $8M. Those are two very different things. It would take a $400M payroll to construct a 98 win team of free agents so I think their calculation is based purely on average production as opposed to value. If this was a measure or worth, Dozier would have been worth $86M over the last two years.

How are you calculating his worth at $60M?

Because I heard an interview with Ken Rosenthal. He said there were four teams he thought Stanton would approve for a trade. (Dodgers | Yankees | Red Sox and I think the 4th one is Chicago. Obviously, he is speculating but he is a little more connected than the rest of us.

There are so many things wrong with this I am not sure where to start. Perhaps the best place is that I said let's wait until next year if Darvish or Arietta are not the right guys. I also mentioned deadline acquisitions. Perhaps most importantly, how does passing on these guys eliminate all of the other potential means of acquiring SP. Why can't we start with Cobb or Lynn this year and acquire an even better SP next year when the core is one year closer to their prime and there are hopefully better available FAs? If we pass on Darvish and Arietta does this somehow prohibit our prospects from panning out or perhaps even exceed expectations? Does this prohibit Falvey and Levine from making the kinds of deals that facilitated Cleveland's rise to contention?

He has a full no trade clause and he is not coming here no matter what we offer the Marlins. This is Verlander all over again with even less chance the player would waive their no trade clause to come here.

Jimmer. Let's be fair. How many of those 27 SPs have been better than Santana. The key to success is getting production out of lower cost players when other teams have far more revenue. Many fans speak as if the big $ players are a much better bet. That list of the 2015 class that was posted recently certainly does not substantiate that rational. Let's keep in mind the downside of these failed contracts. I would rather spend the money on extending our core. How many big $ guys does Cleveland have on their roster? They have demonstrated how a mid market team can build a team that can contend for several years. Can you name a team inn the same revenue class as the Twins that has ever built a contender where the most productive players were top free agents? Perhaps an even better question is ... Are there any big dollar free agents the Twins should bet on to carry this core to contention. They will cripple our chances of contention If they sign a $30M contract that ends up being dead weight. Arietta? No way am I risking our future for him. Darvish ... Maybe but even Darvish does not get us close to contending with Houston / Boston / NY & Cleveland. For me it comes down to how many years will we have Darvish big $ after his production is fallen. I would rather extend Buxton and a couple others and widen our window of contention. Buy rentals when we are truly a contender. Audition and the plethora of pitching prospects we have and establish another starter or two as well as a couple bullpen arms this year. Let's go into what will be an incredible free agents class next year and fills the final gaps.

I am a big proponent of extending our core. However, any plan that start with the assumption all of these players are willing to extend has a very low probability of success. Add to that how inconsistent they have all been and it’s a bad idea in concept. I also think you are light on the dollars and it’s not financially feasible to extend them all at what they are likely to cost. These decisions can be mad over the next couple years and that additional time should facilitate better decisions, especially given none of them has sustained a high level of play. Dozier – Extending Dozier is not where I would invest given the depth we have in high ceiling middle infield prospects. Buxton – We still have no idea if he can hit for more than a 6 week period but I would extend him at this price if he is willing. Sano – Just not a guy I would bet on at this point. Take another year or even two to determine if Sano is a good long-term investment. Rosario – I would sign him for that kind of money in a heartbeat but it will take considerably more. He is a good bet to maintain his offense now that he has improved his plate discipline from horrid to below average. He will be great if he can develop average plate discipline. Kepler – I had a man crush on Kepler but I want to see him bounce back before I invest long-term. Rooker might be a better option than Kepler by 2019. It makes a lot of sense to approach this next year or later unless the terms were very favorable. Berrios – I doubt he signs for this kind of money. Regardless of the exact dollars, I would want option years on any pitcher. History is very clear how risky pitchers are on long-term deals. Polanco is also worthy of consideration. I would be more apt to extend him than Kepler right now which is part of the reason this should be approached over the course of the next couple years. Our payroll is roughly $85M. We can go get Lynn, Cobb or maybe even Darvish and a couple relievers. This would make for a very good team, especially if this core continues to improve in a manner consistent with core players worthy of an extension. Next year we have $44M coming off the books if we don’t pick-up Santana’s option. At that point we are going to be in a much better position to determine where to invest. We will be doing so in a year with an exceptional free agent class. We will have had another year to determine the best extensions candidates and there will more legitimate pitching prospects (SP&BP) reaching ML readiness than we have had in a long time.

Yes, FAs deliver on average 1 WAR per $8M in salary but it makes no sense to average and say you should expect to pay $32M/year for a 4 WAR SP. Santana produced 8.4 WAR over the last 2 years for 27.5M. The $8M for every 1 WAR is actually argument that they should not sign any FAs. It would cost $400M to build a 98 win team via free agency at ab average 1 WAR/$8M. Obviously the goal is to find the ones that produce 3.27 WAR for every million spent instead of $1M. Lynn produced 10.3 WAR over the last 3 years even with coming back from TJ. Cobb had back to back 3.9 WAR years before TL. I would be quite happy to add a 3.5-4.0 WAR guy to this staff.