Major League Ready

This premise of “MLB owners should operate as a non-profit so we could improve our team keeps coming up. This premise is a failure of economics 101. If MLB owners operated as a non-profit we would still be in the same position in terms of competing for free agents. We might even be worse off because some of the large market teams make about the same net percentage as the Twins but have higher revenue. Therefore, even more incremental revenue would be available to those teams. The net effect would be player salaries would be even higher. The only way this would benefit our team is if the Pohlads were willing to operate as a non-profit while the rest of league maintained business practices focused on maintaining profitability as they do now. There also would not be MLB at least not even remotely close to form we enjoy now. It takes a whole lot of capital to build and maintain an entire industry. Given business valuations are based on sustainable profitability the only way MLB could exist in this form would be if it were government sponsored non-profit.

Exactly, Acquiring an established SP with 3-4 years of control carries such a lofty price that you likely hurt the franchise long-term. KC just demonstrated how to have 20 years of futility and then a very short window of contention. What would be the short-term effect?. Archer would not put us on the level of the Indians so we are still likely playing for a wildcard. That does not have the same benefit it did just a few years ago. It's the equivalent of a game 163. Even if you get there the chances are 50/50 you don't get to a playoff series. If we have to trade one of our young core to get an Archer the gain on the Indians is reduced or eliminated. If not, it would take a package that likely included Lewis and a couple of our other top SP prospects. Perhaps Lewis and two of Gonsalves, Romero, and Thorpe. I also think he is a border line ace and we would still be at a disadvantage in a playoff series with the other top contenders. I just don't see a net gain trading for an established "ace" level SP. Let's hope Falvine can identify a break-out candidate for us.

You're right. My bad! I have noticed you had taken a significantly different position and I am not giving you credit here. The only place we differ is on Quintana is timing. They just came off a 103 loss season and most people here were predicting a 90 loss season this year. That's not the time to be trading away top prospects. The core made nice progress last year but not a single one of them showed any consistency with perhaps the exception of Rosario. Buxton, Kepler, and Berrios showed periods where they looked like high impact players. Sano showed no progress offensively this year. The interesting question is what would we likely have needed to give for Quintana. They got a top 10(5) OF prospect and a SP with front of the rotation potential plus a couple other pieces. What would have taken to beat the Cubs offer? They would not have done the deal without at least one very good SP prospect and I don't think Gonsalves qualifies. That likely would have made it necessary to include Berrios and we still have a big gap in terms of competing with the Indians.

I gave examples of trades that many here were insistent upon that would have substantially detoured our chances of contending in a previous post. You chose to ignore that information. How about acknowledging that the constant insistence that we should be able to land the highest price free agents ignores very basic financial and economic principles. You don't need a MBA to understand this one. It is flat sticky one's head in the sand. Had we made many of the trades suggested here, we would have traded away our future and insured mediocrity at best. Tulo and LuCroy would have been horrible. The Quintana example assumes a crystal ball because trading away a top 5 prospect and a very high ceiling (top 50ish) SP plus a couple other pieces after a 100 loss season would be incompetent. One could make a case for this type of trade for 2018 but your position is all about the past.

The FA part is very simple. The top 10 revenue markets averaged $140M/team more revenue than us. Collectively that’s 1.4B in incremental revenue those teams have to spend. Every single one of those teams could sign 5 top free agents and have our revenue left over. Wishing we could defy the principles of economics is a lost cause. Long-term success for this franchise is infinitely more dependent on the success of the current efforts to improve analytics, scouting, drafting and development. If you want to wish for something that will impact the team. Wish for the new hires in these areas to do a great job and the development process to be dramatically improved.

I would rather go get another Santana in free agency who has been beter than Gray and not give up two top 100 prospects plus a near MLB ready SP that projects as a mid-rotation guy. The same was said of Tulo, Shields, Ellsbury and others. People forget about all of the proposed great deals that would have hurt this team. Some proposed we give up multiple assets for Tulo. That trade alone would have hurt the team for several years. Many suggested we give up some of our top young talent at the time for Lucroy because we were ready to contend. Lucroy would be long gone. He certainly would not have gotten those teams to the playoffs and part of our young core would not be here. Some were big proponents of trading Nolasco for Shields and taking on that salary late in his career. As I recall proponents said him decline would not be a problem. He is now one of the worst SPs in the league at that $21M would still be on the books next year. Whatever our chances are of getting a good free agent SP next year would be out the window. How about Jordan and Zimmerman and least they would not have cost us parts of our young core. He might even bounce back but his FIP of 5+ and $25M/yr for 3 more years would not look good on our rosster. How about Sanchez before him. People said don’t worry about his decline. He had one good year and 3 consecutive years that would had us begging for Kyle Gibson. How about Ellsbury? There was not a lot of chatter for him but there were those who went out of their way to make a case for Ellsbury. How bad would it suck to have that contract on the books until 2021 That signing would have made getting a good SP in free agency or extending our core much harder. I guess it would be hard to understand why any FO does not just jump at these deals if you don't give any consideration to how badly they hurt the team for a number of years when they don't pan out.

Players do not like to be traded. That's why they bargained for it to be their choice. There was no financial gain for Verlander and a very low probability of going deep into the playoffs. I have no idea if Verlander would accept a trade to the Twins but I certainly would not take a hard stance on such an assumption with no validation, especially when the circumstances suggest he would have better options. I certainly would not assume that the people running the organization just don't get it. I too think it would have been a decent trade. However, I am certainly not going to assume the FO is incompetent because a deal did not get done. I guess its fun to assume we know about running a baseball team than baseball executives. I am pretty darn sure the position would not command salaries of multiple millions/year if there we so many people around capable of doing the job.

You are missing the point which was conceptual. The fan perspective (concept) that it's better to just go for it is DEEPLY flawed which is where the saying "sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make". The most valuable deals are break-out players or prospects. They cost little, return big and don't carry the risk (opportunity cost) associated with big names. I actually think acquiring Verlander had a good risk/return ratio. He seems to be a good candidate to maintain effectiveness later in his career and we would only be on the hook for 2 years as compared to some of these deals that go to age 37 or later. I just think it's a moot point because he was not willing to come here.

That's a matter of opinion. Hitting on the Kluber / Arrieta deals is far more valuable than the deals where you have to give up alot to get a lot. They also don't have the risk of having huge cost and little or modest returns and they don't have the capacity to hurt a team for several years. This opinion is common among fans not so muck among people who are or who have been responsible for 9-figure organizations. People in that position look at the odds and the odds of the Twins actually getting into a playoff series was very low. Their chances at the time of getting to the wildcard game were less than 10% as I recall. Of course, their odds of getting to a playoff series was half of that percentage if you assume the Twins had a 50/50 chance against the Yankees in Yankee stadium. Getting lucky with a bad decision does not make it a good decision. This whole thread is also based on the premise Verlander would have waived his no trade clause. Another highly unlikely outcome.

I knew where you were coming from, Mike. The big picture is he was coming of TJ. I am just not sure I agree his results were bad. His ERA was about the same as Santana's. I never saw a single inning he pitched but would we rather have a good FIP or ERA? The FIP is cause for concern but how was his "stuff"? Was his velocity back to normal by the end of the season? Concluding he was bad because his FIP was high seems to be a rush to judgment. Falvey and Levine have a good track record where these assessments are concerned. I will feel pretty good about the off-season if they sign Cobb or conclude Lynn is likely to pitch like he did pre TJ and sign him. Add one or two BP pieces along with all of the BP prospects and next year should be the best team we have had in a long time.

Next year will be his 2nd year after TJ. His ERA first year back was better than every SP we had last year other than Santana. Granted, he is in the NL and his FIP was high. The question is will he get back to the level of performance he had pre TJ. That guy would be a very welcome addition. Our win total should go up with a more experienced core and Santana | Berrios | Lynn | Mejia & Gibson. Hopefully, Gonsalves should be ready. Slegers | Littell & Enns provide depth. Right now the list of guys that can help us is very short and the list of teams who wnat them is much longer. Sure we would like to have Darvish or Arrieta but that would require we outbid several teams with considerably more revenue that are markets which also provide greater endorsement potential. History would suggest that is not going to happen regardless of it's the Twins or a similar market. So, let's get Cobb or Lynn. They are the Santana's of this free agent class.

There have been quite a few guys who wanted X and got much less than X. Who knows with the shortage of SP but I don't think he gets that kind of money. 4 and 80 would not surprise me but 5 and 100 would.

That’s pretty meaningless given he missed all of 2016 after TJ surgery. He had 186 this year which is pretty darn good the first year after TJ. So, you are really saying don’t sign him because he only completed 175 innings in 2015 which I would guess was partly due to the injury that required TJ. My only concern is that is FIP did not look so good last year but this guy has been a very solid SP. I would be thrilled to have him if he pitches to his career numbers.

I would not be surprised to see $130M payroll. The organization certainly understands the need for pitching. This FO office also understands the implications of trading away multiple assets with 6 years of control. Prospects are risky but 3 or 4 of them mitigate risk whereas one player can get injured or simply not perform as expected. Developing players to the point of being major league ready or even better establishing those players at the ML level dramatically increases their trade value and provides the opportunities to shape the roster. Offering market price is by no means a guarantee of getting any of the highly sought after FAs. They have their choice of where they want to play. However, keeping numerous prospects who eventually provide low cost production off-sets the cost of these FAs if just one of those prospects produces at the ML level. Lavine learned about asset management and the value of developing players/assets in Cleveland. They will pick the approach with a higher probability of producing wins or WaR if you prefer. The Pohlads understand asset management, valuations, and probabilities. I just think the approach used by our new FO will translate into plan to acquire talent that makes sense to ownership. More confidence from ownership likely means a little more willingness is participate in free agency. Keeping the prospects also provides a low cost way to replace Santana, Dozier and Mauer in the near future. (perhaps they extend Mauer) Using free agency to upgrade SP instead of paying the very high cost in prospects required to get front-line SP is a more probable path to contention for an extended period of time. It’s not too hard to chart a path to contention using free agency for SP now and then using the salaries from contracts expiring 2018-19 to extend our core. They still need a couple SP and bullpen prospects to work-out but we have enough prospects that it is reasonable to expect some ML players from the group.

Non-profit organizations aside, EVERY business has a salary cap. Detroit operated for a handful of years with little regard for the bottom line. Every other pro sports franchise operates within a budget. The position the Twins are somehow different is an exceptionally simplistic view of the world. I have posted Forbes annual recaps here more than once it is was really quite clear the Twins spending policies were in line with the rest of MLB . There is an awful lot of completely unsubstantiated rhetoric around this position. I sure would like to see someone support this position with some form of documentation for once.

Now you are using one instance instead of the numerous trade discussions they were involved. You are using ONE rental player outside the top 50 to make your case when the context here is trading for a top SP with 3+ years of control. Calhoun and a couple players outside their top 15 prospects is not even close to what it would cost for the names that have been thrown around here. The trade for the 2nd baseman who’s name you can’t even remember is an example of them not trading away their best prospects. They could have had Dozier who is the superior player but the Twins would not settle for DeLeon. It was apparent the Dodgers were not high on him and they were unwilling to trade the type of prospects necessary to get Dozier or equivalent. I think it’s very fair to say that the Dodger’s organization places a very high value on top prospects.

My bad MIke. I did not understand you were talking about mid-rotation guys. I have been on board that type of signing. It's obviously realistic given we signed Santana and Nolasco not so long ago. Regardless, Cleveland's template is the ideal approach, IMO. They drafted well, developed their prospects, and made very smart trades for near ready talent that did not cost the farm. I think Kansas City's approach assured a short window. They sucked for 20 years, had 3 good years and now how long will they suck again. There is a very definite trend in the organizations that have hired business people with business educations. They are intent on building via their farm system. You notice that the Dodgers refused to give up prime assets. They would have been even better this year but they understood they will be better for several years by being patient. I believe Falvey and Levine understand this premise. Some of the participants here won't like their methodical approach. Personally, I am very pleased with what I see from this FO. We have enough talent in our system to be competitive for many years. Now we need a couple players to reach their ceiling and a couple to surprise a bit like Kluber. If that happens, we could be a contender for several years.

I guess the Indians should just fold their franchise. Oakland, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Milwaukee. How many top free agents SPs have these teams signed? A couple years ago I put a breakdown on this site of how all the playoffs teams acquired their SPs. Free agency had very little impact. They were predominately drafted or traded for while still in MiLB or or in a couple cases they had made it to the show but had not really proven themselves yet.

Many of the opinions here about players are well supported by fact/statistics. That’s rarely true when it comes to spending. We just get "of course they can afford X" There are few sources of financial data but if Forbes is to be believed, the Twins net profitability is in line with the rest of the league. The one exception in recent years has been Detroit. I would say Forbes is a credible source. It would sure be nice to see some supporting documentation if people are going to insist the issue is that the twins are cheap. We could actually have a meaningful conversation if we understood the viable financial parameters. Why exactly should we expect to outbid teams with far greater revenue? I would love to hear why this is a reasonable premise in financial / business terms.

I was on the Cobb bandwagon a couple months ago but as I recall, he works REALLLLLLY slow right. That drives me nuts.

This link is their estimated 40-man payroll by Baseball Reference. According to them they are already at $114M w/o options and $120M w/options. https://baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/minnesota-twins-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

Great assessment of the situation. You have put some concrete information behind the speculation. It's much easier to just assume a deal can get done. Of course, when you have specifics, it becomes clear why these deals don't fall into place like we (fans) expect.

I agree but if it's Cobb or Lynn you have to think those two get 4 year deals given the market for free agent SPs or am I in LF? I would much rather have a middle of the rotation FA and all of our prospects than trade our top SP prospects and this point because one good SP makes us good but I seriously doubt it gets us past the Indians. However, if you can get more prospects as suggest by Tomj14, maybe we could position ourselves to get a front of the rotation guy. It still seems like a long-shot that we could get DeGrom with anything we get for Santana and if the prospect is that good, I don't think I would give him up. You notice that the Dodgers, even with their revenue, refuse to give up their best prospects. Too bad because Bellinger for for Dozier would have been nice for us.

If you are only thinking about next season, then there is no value. If you are satisfied with a shot at the 2nd wild card, then there is no value. Keeping Santana and even adding Cobb or Lynn still does not even get you close to the Indians, Astros, Redsoxs, and Yankees. If you are thinking about the next 6-7 seasons and becoming a serious contender, it could be extremely advantageous. Obviously, that depends on how the players we get in trade work-out. OIf course, Santana could easily decline given his age. If you want to build a true contender, the type of out out the box thinking Thyros provided is going to be necessary. Perhaps not specifically trading Santana but that concept.

I like the out of the box thinking. Most people are probably thinking we need to keep Erv and add but I don’t see a formula where that approach gets us past the Indians in the next couple years. It’s a great long-term play if we can get a good return on Santana and this year looks to be a seller’s market. This would be a great approach if we could pick up Cobb or Lynn. That would mean we go with Berrios, Lynn or Cobb, Gibson, Mejia, and the 5th spot to May, Slegers or Gonsalves. Maybe we can pick-up a rebound candidate as well. Then, when Mauer’s salary (plus Santana/Hughes) comes off the books, we spend some money on a free agent(s) as our core is entering their prime. If we traded Erv and added Cobb or Lynn, we should still have payroll room to bring back Kintzler and one other RP. We should also be able to establish one or two of the several power arms that are in the minors now.