Major League Ready

I must have misunderstood the previous post. This seems reasonable.

By that logic, we should say that Kirillloff is in place. I dont see any relevance in how long players were in our minor league system. Sano has 830 ABs and Buxton has 469. There are question marks surrounding both of them. Please elaborate on how this is the basis for grab some pitchers and go. We need at least two front of the rotation SPs. There are non in free agency. How specifically are you going to acquire these SPs "and run."

Mauer is an interesting example. You may recall I have said it might be time to let him go if he did not bounce back last year. However, I don’t think his cost is sunk. I say I don’t think it’s sunk because I would guess someone would give him a 2 year contract if he were a free agent. He was only a 1 war player last year. Would anyone care to guess what Mauer would get? Could he get 2/13? This discussion started with players I think it much harder to determine if they will ever have value. Mauer seems to simply be in decline. Hughes was quite good before his velocity feel off. I don’t like his odds but there is still substantial potential if he comes back from this surgery. The scenario is about the same as Perkins. IMO, the definition of sunk is very different for a fan and the people responsible for P&L or the person who’s money is being spent., Many fans have great difficulty accepting MLB is a business. At least their comments often suggest the put very little value in someone else’s 10s of millions. BTW … If Mauer would bring 2/13, $13 million is not sunk. While we might like for ownership to flush that $13M in value, its not quite so easy to just give up on a player when it’s your $13M or if you are the guy responsible for P&L it’s not so easy either. This is one of those things that are much easier to understand or appreciate if you have been in that position.

You don't understand the definition of a sunk cost and neither do a number of people here who keep using it incorrectly. If there is still hope of a return it's not a sunk cost.

There is a very large gap in how fans see this as compared to people that have or have had P&L responsiblity for organizations that generate 9 figures in revenue. The "its not my money" perspective is incredibly naive.

The wording I used could easily be misconstrued. “Need a spot to give them a shot” is not at all the same as giving them a spot. People endorse low risk high leverage acquisitions her all the time. There is absolutely no risk with either player. We already owe them the money. Both have been very good performers at times, especially Perkins.

This riddle does not seem that tough. Non-tender Plouffe. Give Sano this entire season to assess if he can play 3B. The tough question is what are you willing to except for Dozier if an ideal scenario does not present itself? The hope here is for ML ready SP. Anyone trading for Dozier with 2 years of control is not going to trade ML ready starting pitching. At least not one with the kind of ceiling we want in return. The bullpen is a quite the riddle as well. You cant rely on Perkins at all. Then, there is Hughes. You have to have a spot to give these guys a shot at coming back, right?

When I think of athleticism for a baseball player, I include arm and raw power to the other things we would think of in terms of athleticism. Sano has incredible raw power and one of the best arms of any position player in MLB. What if he were in "Winfield" like shape?

I don't think that's a fair assessment. People with far greater credentials than most of us believe that it is a good practice as evidenced by the frequency it is done. In other words, it should be done. Your premise suggests that the people critiquing this practice on the internet understand what should or should not be done better than the people making these decisions. That is highly unlikely, IMO.

No problem. The only point was that many summarily dismissed Sano and this experiment because he was 270 lbs. I used Schwaber as an example for a couple reasons. One, Maddon is highly regarded. Two, Schwaber, while not completely untested, was far from proven. Point being , Sano is faster even at 270 than Schwaber so why was the Schwaber experiment OK and the Sano experiment not worthy of the experiment. As I said from the beginning, I thought they should have just put him at 3B and rode it out but I was ok with the experiment in a season that never had a chance from day 1. The thing that really floors me is that so many people said he could not play there because he weighed 270 lbs. as if there was no correcting the problem. He is 270 because you can get away with being out of shape in baseball. I will be thrilled if he shows up in great shape not just for the obvious reasons but it would also suggest a higher level of commitment. Koske went from being a bad 3B defensively to quite good with determination and commitment. Would love to see that from Sano. BTW ... I agree with Mike. The execution still sucked. That's where the criticism belongs IMO but Sano's size, given his athleticism should not have been an issue. It appeared the experiment was condemned because guys his size are generally far to slow to play the position. While this is true, it's pretty backward logic when he had already demonstrated significantly better speed than others who have played the position.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. My point is that both players were unproven in the OF. Their bats warranted a shot. If Sano is more athletic than Schwaber, especially if Sano lost 30 lbs, why should Sano to the OF be dismissed because he is bigger? I think Jimmer hit the nail on the head. Their execution sucked but his size was not the problem.

So, are you saying that Sano was no athletic enough to play the position. Nobody though tit was insane to suggest Plouffe or Mauer in the outfield. Sano at 270 is far more athletic than Plouffe and quite a bit faster than Mauer. He certainly is faster and more athletic than alot of guys that played the position because of their bat. Point is that size is not nearly as relevant a question as does he have the athleticism to play OF. He failed because he could not make the adaption. Size was not the primary problem. Also, to focus on the fact that he was 270lbs has to be the worst assessment of the core problem I have ever seen on this site. How much problem solving skill does it take to recognize he is 30 lbs over weight. I think a better assessment of the problem was that he should lose 30 lbs, not that he cant play the position because he weighs 270.

Maddon puts people in new positions on a regular basis. The article suggests Cleveland was smart to move Santana not once but twice. However, the Twins are incompetent fools when they use out fo the box thinking. Which player is more athletic, Sano or Schwarber? I would say Sano so difference does it make if Sano is bigger. Let's also remember the Twins and Sano had agreed that Sano would shed some weight. Some of you seem to forget that Sano's size is something that could have been relatively easily adjusted to better fix the position. There are a bunch of NFL players who would be much more athletic than alot of MLB corner outfielders so I just dont get how Sano's size should have disqualified him as a candidate to play a corner OF position. What's even more weird is the number of people who think Mauer or Plouffe who are both much slower than Sano should play OF. Somehow really slow is ok if you are not really big.

Yes, The Cubs have done several things well that the Twins could and should emulate. However, to discount the impact of their revenue because some of the FAs are not contributing fails to recognize that these failures are normal. In other words, it should be expected that some free agents will perform and others will not, This strategy requires deep enough pockets to absorb the failures. The Cubs are spending just shy of $115M this year on free agents. The Indians and the Twins could not possibly follow this model so to say there is not a a material difference is conceptually flawed. The Twins and Indians only hope of competing is to excel at drafting, development, and asset management. The core of their problem was they did not embrace and invest in the practices crucial to excelling in these areas.

Pretty spot on. Getting to the world series is a poor measure of the impact of revenue. There are many variables and its a small sample size. Regular season records offer a much better statistical measure of the impact of revenue. The Yankees won 1592 games since 2000. Yes, the Royals won a WS. They also won 359 games less since 2000. The bottom 12 teams with the exception of Oakland have averaged 16 less wins/year. (94 vs 78). I think the correlation to revenue is very clear. BTW ... Market is often used as a proxy from revenue but market size does not necessarily reflect revenue (ie.St. Louis)

Kluber and Bauer were not immediate upgrades. I am all for any Kluber/Bauer type deals and so is everyone else on this site but they are guys that took time to develop which appears to be exactly the opposite of you stated goal to get better immediately. This is just more complaining with no constructive attempt at an actual solution. So far, you have said the equivalent to buy high sell low. Where are you getting this front line SP? Be specific. Contenders are not giving it up unless it made the Miller deal look conservative. That leaves the rebuilding teams which is to say VERY few obtainable front of the rotation SPs and you need two in an extreme seller’s market. So please, tell me how you get this done. Who exactly do you trade for and what do you have to give up. Anyone can say you just have to get it done. The reality is that there are no FAs and Arietta deals are extremely rare. Dozier is very unlikely to bring back a proven front of the rotation SP because Dozier would only be of interest to a contender. They are not giving up a front of the rotation guy. It would take two trades in my estimation. One would likely need to feature Sano and the other Buxton. These deal are generally require 4 prospects per player so you are talking Sano and Buxton plus at least 2-3 from the group of Kepler, Berrios, Jay, Gordon, and Gonsalves and then 3-4 guys like Rosario, Mejia, Palka, Blakenhorn,Stewart types. No Thanks! I will wait until 2018. Hopefully figure out some of the many question marks in 2017 and then sign some FAs in 2018. In the meanwhile, I trade Santana and Dozier if I can get a good return.

This is not what I meant by specifics but I can see where Once again, this I seriously doubt those who advocate the need to fix this immediately would be satisfied with “figure out which FAs are, indeed, good players who's value is down.” None of the FAs SPs available this year are expected to be front of the rotation starters and none of them would satisfy those who say fix it right now. If this is not the case, give us specific examples who which players you believe would fix the problem. Front of the rotation International FA starting pitcher – For starters, who is going to be available. If one comes up there is going to be several teams with waaaay more money than the Twins going hard after them. It’s a good idea but to suggest the Twins SHOULD win this type of bidding war against teams with much greater resources is naïve. Go find a Jake Arrieta. Wonderful! Absolutely!! How often does that happen? Trade for a LF? OK, how does that fix what is by far our greatest problem? That being SP. Trade prospects. OK Tell me specifically how you get that done. What rebuilding teams have front of the rotation SPS because contenders are not trading them. What are you giving up and let’s keep in mind that one SP, even a great one like Chris Sale does not make this team even close to being a contender. You need two front of the rotation SPs. And, if you are not going to contend, what is the point of not flushing out what you have this year and then going after a great free agent SP next year when there will be a much better FA class? Hoarding minor league players was not the problem with this organization. Most organizations do, even the ones with money. How often has Cleveland traded away top prospects. How did this strategy contribute to their current WS team. Tomlin was a 19th round pick. In other words, one of those guys you should trade as a prospect because they probably wont make it. Kluber was never considered a great prospect. Even after he was established as a MLB player he resigned as a FA for 5 years 38.5M. That hardly considered a front of the rotation guy. They believed in these guys and stuck with them. Bauer was a guy Arizona gave up on. They were in a hurry. How did that work out for them? How did Cleveland acquire their top 4 position players? Lindor – 1st round pick Kipnis – 2nd round pick Ramirez – $50K International signing Santana - Acquired when he was in High A. Looks to me they were smart in drafting and trading for prospects. Then, they did a good job of development and waiting out their prospects.

We need at least 2 well above average SPs to make any real difference. What would you suggest be done to get this done in 2017? I am as tired of sucking as anyone else but how do you fix it immediately without trading away the young players who should be our future? Top tier SPs always bring a big return and I would think they would bring a huge return this year. There are no front of the rotation FA SPs this year and I don't see Dozier bringing back an established front of the rotation guy. Any team that would want to trade for him would be in a win now mode. That's not a team that is going to trade away a proven front of the rotation SP. So, I would love to hear some specifics of a plan to get this done immediately.

We want them to turn over every rock, right? Then, when we hear they are looking outside their normal practices, we should be encouraged. I don't understand the propensity to complain when it is reported they are doing what we all hope they will do.

What you would have accomplished is trading two years of your best player and 4 years of a decent player with the potential to be very good for 1 year of Chris Sale. That's a very questionable move for a contending team and a horrible idea for a team that lost 100+ games the previous season. I have no problem with trading Dozier and/or Rosario but do it for something that can actually contribute toward building a contender.

The lack of a rule is irrelevant. Do you need a rule to tell you that you can’t spend more than you take in? You must work for the government. This team does not spend as you would like because they are running a business. You are welcome to hold winning the WS above all. I think you are in the minority, especially if the context is that you prefer to have the worst team in baseball for 15 years (like the Royals) if the end result is one great year. This board is seems very disappointed with 5 years of futility. I doubt many here would prefer the Twins young guns really come on next year and our pitching prospects make great strides and we are back in contention by 2018 and have a 10 year run of 93-100 wins with no WS title vs 10 more years of this futility and then having one great year where they win it all. For me, it’s not even remotely close.

I was illustrating the correlation between revenue and winning. Post season success for a given franchise has very little value in demonstrating that link. The season win records include all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue and it’s all the data, not a small sample size. It clearly illustrates that revenue does matter. Pointing out, as Jimmy did, that small market teams have won is stating the obvious. The question is a matter of relative difficulty, how long between those WS appearances, and what happened between these brief periods. Kansas City is the perfect example. In the 15 years prior to 2013 when they went “all in”, the royals lost an average of 94.4 games per season. The Pirates lost an average of 92.6 games the 15 years prior to them putting together a contender in 2013. If you suck that bad for that long you get a lot of top picks. Who you really have preferred KCs track record to the Twins over the past 15 years? I would add that they managed their assets in a manner that shrunk their window. They only managed a couple good years after 20 years of futility. They might be decent next year but how long will it be before they contend again after they lose what has been their core to free agency. Revenue does matter. You have back peddled substantially from your original post and regardless of your position, the revenue should not matter theme is often heard here and it completely ignores the hard facts which are very easy to look-up for anyone who cares to take an informed position. I agree they should spend when they have a window but I dont understand the complaint. They spent when they got Target Field and they have not been in a window of contention since the period of time they were one of the lowest revenue team in the league. Expecting it back then was naive and let's wait to see what happens when it occurs now that they have a modestly better revenue position. Also, did the Mets, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, Red Sox or KC spend beyond what is normal for the league during their window of contention? Boston, one of the top 5 teams in terms of revenue let Ellsbury walk. The Cardinals let Pujlos go. The Dodgers let Grienke go last year. These are all businesses and they simply are not going to throw around money like fans believe they should.

The idea of a cap is to nullify revenue advantage. Saying there is no cap in baseball in the context that revenue should not be a factory makes absolutely no sense. Unless of course, you subscribe to the idea that the owners with $100M disadvantage should spend as much as the top market. In other words, they should invest a billion dollars for the right to lose a billion dollar in 10-15 years. Unless you can demonstrate that other small to mid-market teams have won as much as the major markets, we are really not talking about opinion here. Here is the list of win percentages since the turn of the century through 2015 for teams with equal or less revenue than the twins. I did this last year and did not think it was necessary to add 2016. Oakland - 537 Twins - 503 Rays - 499 Jays - .99 Indians - 498 Mariners - 492 Dbacks - 49 Reds - 481 Marlins - 480 Brewers - 471 Pirates - 452 Royals - 444 I only calculated the win records for a few of the top teams. Obviously, not all of the top markets have excelled. Yankees - 582 Boston - 546 Dodgers - 536 Philly - 517 Angels - 546 Giants - 531 Cardinals - 565 Oakland is the only small market to team to even come close so to say you don’t buy the whole small market thing is to ignore the facts.

It is true they have not had any post season success. Given the way you measure success, yes, they have been terrible for 25+ years. I look at the whole, especially when evaluating a 25 year period.I just think the notion the twins have always suck assumes a context of they should win as much as the large market teams which I believe to be a ridiculous premise. It's along season. I want to be entertained for 162 games. If we win our share of World Series in simplistic terms a WS win is likely every 30 years. You are welcome to measure success any way you like but I am not going to demand a standard that only provides satisfaction 1/30 of the time. There is enough disappointment in life without creating expectations that are likely to lead to disappointment 29 times out of 30.

I see where you are coming from now. A little context always helps.