Major League Ready

Fanaticism is interesting. It’s perfectly fine for a player to get every last dollar they can in free agency. But an owner should invest hundreds of millions and act as a non-profit. Let’s put this in perspective. It would take the average American 2,500 years to earn as much as Cespedes will over the 3 year contract he just signed. The deals Price and Grienke signed are roughly equivalent to 7,000 years work for the average American. Those of you who promote the idea that a team should be willing to operate at break-even because it is prestigious or because of tax breaks have not thought that idea through. The only difference that would make is that the players would make even more. Every team would spend more and no team would gain any advantage. Therefore, if this is your position, you need to modify it to the Pohlads and the twins should be the only team or one of a very small group of teams willing to ignore the most basic principal of any business. BTW … Even if they were willing to operate at break-even, they would still be a substantial disadvantage when compared to the top revenue teams.

You would have to believe that Arizona dangled the same package that they offered Atlanta for Shelby Miller to the Mets and they obviously were not able to trade for one of the Mets elite SPs. Is it worth giving up that kind of haul or more to get one of the Mets SPs? Would we become a serious contender or would we even be the favorite to win our division? Their asking price starts with Sano or Buxton + Kepler + someone like Burdi.

I was really high on Rosario after seeing him in the Arizona Fall League Championship and his defense was a breath of fresh air after watching the likes of Willingham and Young in LF. However, his plate discipline has to get much better. I drives me crazy when a hitter can't layoff stuff that is not even close to the strike zone. He is going have to get much better where this is concerned or he is never going to be above average offensively. The flip side is that if this skill improves. he will be a very valuable piece. The potential of a Buxton / Kepler / Rosario outfield is really exciting. How good defensively would that OF be? We should get a good look at the trio the 2nd half of the season and maybe earlier.

What Mike said ...

There seems to be a presumption here that his role is assured next year. The first question is does he have trade value or are there scenarios that would make it more beneficial to keep Nunez until these other scenarios play out. For example, what if they trade Plouffe? Perhaps they have already had talks about including him in a trade package or they feel he has trade value. If so, why cut him now. Settle the arbitration, let the off-season play-out and make decisions when they need to be made.

I too am skeptical of Arcia's future. He seems to be a longshot at this point. He was pretty miserable at AAA last year. The FO and coaching staff might also be growing tired of watching him swing out of his shoes or mope when things don't go well for him. He is Carlos Gomez minus the athleticism and defensive value. However, I just hate the idea of letting him go without one final chance, especially given our current OF situation. It would really suck to watch him hit 30 bombs for someone else.

I am a big Buxton fan but I would think the Twins management would have to see a great spring training from Buxton because based on what we saw last season, he is not ready to be here. He was promoted because of need as opposed to being ready for the ML level. Granted, he was better right at the end but unless he looks fantastic in spring training, let the kid 4-6 weeks in AAA to get some confidence. Rosario and/or Santana can hold down CF for a month or so. This is also has the added benefit of providing Arcia an opportunity. Obviously, Arcia and Buxton play different positions but the players could be maneuvered in a manner that provides a place for Arcia. I also still think there is a decent chance Plouffe is dealt and Sano is at 3B.

I hope not. Our current situation is the ideal scenario to give Arcia one last shot. Buxton probably spends April and at least part of May at AAA. Kepler might be more prepared than Buxton for ML pitching at this point but after pushing both Hicks and Buxton, hopefully, they make sure he is ready. They also are not going to want to start his service clock. So, why not give Arcia a chance? We have reinforcements very close in the pipeline if Arcia does not make the grade. I am wondering if he is in Fort Myers early because they had the same conversation about conditioning (getting leaner) with Arcia as they did with Sano. Obviously, Arcia is not as big a guy as Sano but it would not hurt Arcia’s defense if he was leaner by spring. If nothing else, it would be a good sign of maturity if Arcia is making this type of commitment and effort. I will be rooting for an ever better version of the guy we were so high on two years. How good would the best version of Oswaldo Arcia look hitting between Sano and Park?

Actually, I realized the mistake after my first or second post but I didn't think I could change it.

I thought he had 3 years of controlled but he has 4 years of control. Count me on board with it would take a deal one heck of a deal. The Miller deal might still be a stretch because I don't see another FO going nuts like AZ did for a SP that is not a true front of the rotation guy. Would anyone not trade him for the package Atlanta got for Miller? If Swanson were a little closer that would have been a great deal for us. Inciarte would have been a good fit right out of the gate. Hopefully, Buxton and Kepler reach their potential and we would have had an abundance e of outfielders in that scenario but sign me up for that problem. Blair is MLB.com #61. He probably profiles to be a touch better than Gibson. That's the type of trade that could really help a team sustain a long successful run.

Nobody is trading Gibson for a couple relievers but what if it was a Shelby Miller type return. Gibson is not worth quite as much as Miller but what if the return was slightly less than what the Braves got for Miller? I don't know how you pass that up. Everyone wants a big trade. Well, you cant do that trading Brian Duensing.

Absolutely true but the more salient point here is not baseball vs other businesses but would any business cut $25M where there is a reasonable chance of salvaging the $25M. Perhaps you experience differs from mine but over the past 25 years I have worked with about 100 fortune 500 companies where this analysis was a significant portion of determining a strategy and the decision generally comes down to the financial implications of the alternatives. In other words, is the financial loss mitigated or even a net positive with a different direction which is not the case here. The reason it does not happen is that the situations are generally very similar to this where there is a reasonable chance the player returns to form. Should that happen with Nolasco, I would think he would easy to trade at the deadline and the trade might even bring a decent prospect. It would be a whole different scenario if Dave is correct that they could get 50-60% of his salary. That would be a reasonable business decision because there is a good possibility he fails and they get nothing. I advocated for this quite some time ago but other posters were sure the Twins would have to cover virtually all of his salary and they made good points as to why this was the case. It really sucks that he has sucked. How nice would it be if he had performed at career norms and was a trade asset right now?

The 2nd quote (That The Twins are a business) was in direct response the following post from Dave W. Why on earth would you want to even waste 6-8 starts on Nolasco if he hasn't "earned" them? Those 6-8 starts could sink the team come "stretch time" (assuming the Twins want to aim for the playoffs in 2016 of course) Someone else responded to my suggestion of a dozen starts by stating they would use a “shorter leash” and I did not respond to that opinion. Actually, the right number of starts by which to base an opinion is very debatable and I have no problem with a shorter leash if he is not showing well. I probably should have said 6-12 depending on circumstances. The point being I am obviously on-board with dumping Nolasco if he does not rebound, I just don’t expect any organization to just dump $25M when there is a reasonable chance to salvage some value. You quoted my response to Dave but omitted the quote from Dave that very clearly +states Nolasco should be given no opportunity. You then very specifically link my response to the post where adorduan suggested he only be given 6-8 starts which is a very different premise. I am going to give you the benefit of doubt that you did not purposefully omit the actual post to which I was responding and then completely misrepresent my statements. However, I would appreciate you tie my quotes to the correct statements/posts if you are going to quote me.

Because the Minnesota Twins are business. Anyone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge this fact will continue to be disappointed.

Your exact quote is below. “It's interesting the different perspectives different fans have regarding their owners, how much their owners should spend on players, and how much their owners should expect to profit from their ownership.In England, fans of soccer teams consider the teams to be part of the community, not a for-profit corporation.The teams would NEVER move from their location.They expect their owners to spend as much as they make, or as much as it takes to get results.American ownership of certain teams, like Manchester United, Liverpool and Aston Villa has been severely criticized for practices that are generally accepted here, such as making a profit for the owners and leveraging the value of the team by taking on debt.Fans have been more approving of wealthy owners who are willing to lose money to win, such as Manchester City and Chelsea.However, even though these teams may lose money on a year-to-year basis, the value of the teams appreciates incredibly.” You may not have used the words “non-profit but it certainly was the gist of your argument. You even suggested in another passage they should be willing to lose money so to characterize the rebuttal as a strawman is disingenuous at best. Take a look at the facts instead of just looking for articles written by baseball people like Craig Goldstein who does not have the financial acumen to figure out that teams with more revenue have a greater ability to spend. The whole point of your post was to rehash for the hundredth time that the Twins are cheap and won’t sign an ace. A couple weeks ago I put up a list of the 5-6 year contract signed this century. Exactly one 6 year deal has been done by a team with relatively similar or less revenue than the Twins. Of course, Arizona signed Grienke so if we ignore they just signed a billion dollar TV contract, we can say two such contract have been signed this century. This is hard fact. Some of you just absolutely refuse to take an objective look at the situation and accept no team with the Twins revenue signs these sort of deals. If you want to complain that no teams with the Twins revenue sign ace SPs to six year deals, great, but the constant complaining that the Twins don’t do this because they are unusually conservative is an argument of the uniformed. The more valid complaint is that they have not been good at developing SPs.

I am sure you are right that the Twins or just about any other team would not just write of the $115M dues to Santana/Hughes and Nolasco so the options are somewhat limited. However, I would think Duffey has at least as good a chance as Milone. Hopefully, they give Nolasco a dozen starts to prove himself and then move him to the pen or cut him if he performs on par with 2014-15.

In 2002 MLB in aggregate lost $239M. Arizona won the WS that year and despite their success on the field had an operating loss of 32.2M Using the 56% number from 2002 is disingenuous or very inept from a financial perspective. Does that percentage have something to do with profitability. Of course. Is this a reasonable assertion given the entire league was in severe financial stress? No. The MLB owners went overboard and paid out a percentage that was simply not sustainable and that practice was modified. The LA Times story is referencing tax breaks specific to new franchise owners ability to write off a portion of the salaries paid to players. It has nothing to do with the scenario of the Minnesota Twins. The Vice Sports article is a rant about the wealth of franchise owners as evidenced by outlining the tremendous wealth of numerous owners. He is correct that revenue sharing helps. He also cites national TV contracts. Of course, this raises revenue but provides nothing in terms of closing the revenue gap given the revenues are distributed to all teams. Their still exists a considerable gap in revenue available to fund player's salaries. IMO Goldstein's analysis is parochial. I really am not sure about his claim owners can write off losses against other businesses but offers no documentation or support for that claim. It is possible there is some special provision that resulted from the large losses sustained in the early 2000s. However, I can’t find anything that supports that statement. I know that my lawyer has assured me that I can’t write off losses from one business against profits from my other business. None of this changes the macro view. If all teams went to a non-profit model, the Twins would gain no economic advantage. Therefore, your suggestion requires that the Twins are the only organization or one of very few to practice a non-profit model. So, how well reasoned this non-profit suggestion is depends on if you think it is reasonable to expect the Twins to operate without a profit while all others maintain their profitability.

Clearly the answer is the later but I don’t know why you would even ask. You have cited what is known as the Current State. The post that initiated this cited what is known as an Alternative State of Future State where MLB team owners apply all revenue beyond operating expenses to player payroll. In other words, a break-even model. Of course, when the team follows this model and underperforms on the field, losses should be expected (see 2014 Phillies) but the owner should write off those losses against the other businesses they own. What my experience tells me is that you are asking the wrong question. The right question is what happens under this suggested Future State. In order to answer that question, we first must ask if all teams were to follow this proposed future state or just the Twins. The easier of the two questions to answer is what if all teams were to follow this model. In that case, there is no relative gain, at least not from a macro prospective. All teams would spend more lending no advantage to the Twins given their profits are roughly league average. http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/ What if the the Twins were the only team or one of very few. What would happen to their relative ability to compete for free agents. 1) The revenue gap between the Twins and the Yankees from roughly a $250M to $220-230M. 2) The gap with the Dodgers/Giants/Red Sox would shrink from roughly $175M to 140-150MBoston y would cut the revenue gap between the Twins and the Yankees from roughly a $250M to $220-230M. 3) The gap w/the Cubs/Cardinals/LLA/Phillies and Nationals would shrink from 60-70M to $35-50M. 4) The gap between the Twins and Rangers/Mariners/Tigers and Orioles would be down to $15-20M 5) The gap between the Twins and lower revenue teams would increase by $20-$30M Would this incremental revenue have a significant impact? I really doubt it. Would FA still have the challenges present because of players wanting to play in warmer climates and bigger markets with more exposure and endorsement potential? Probably still be an issue. What about from a business impact prospective. Let’s remember that part of the post that initiated this tangent was about evaluation and writing off losses against other businesses. The part about writing off losses is incorrect. They can’t write off losses from one business to another in terms of getting a tax break. So apparently, the expectation is that not only would the Twins not make a profit but they would spend profits from other businesses to fund losses from the Twins. I would sure love to hear the reaction to this premise at the annual board meeting for the business doing the subsidizing. The interesting part is the valuation. If the proposed future state was the expected norm, all teams would plummet to nearly no value. Obviously, this is a ridiculous premise. If the Twins were the lone or one of a very small group to practice a break-even model, the team’s valuation would theoretically not be impacted because a new owner could adjust their financial practices to make a profit. The variable that might reduce the valuation would be the possibility that reverting to a profitable model would be poorly received by the community and revenue would decrease. So, if you think that it is reasonable to expect our owner to be the only owner to make nothing from the $500M to $1B have in equity, then the Twins operating at break-even is a reasonable expectation. Personally, I think If the Twins are willing to operate as a non-profit, I would prefer the extra 20-30M go into homeless shelters, helping veterans and battered women or any number of good causes. I would prefer that to signing one more high priced free agent.

Looking at Forbes valuations and profits it would appear the average return of equity for a MLB team is roughly 3-5%. This is very low and the only explanation for ownership acceptance is that their valuations keep increasing. Of course, valuations are determined in primarily from forecasted future profits. If these profits were to cease, the team would be of no value and it would make absolutely no sense to run as slim on profit margin as is common practice today. Therefore, the model you suggest would require that thirty individuals or thirty group would have to be willing to fund a couple hundred million in operating expense with no potential financial benefit. The implication is that an individual or group should invest hundreds of millions for no benefit of their own so that athletes can sign makes 10s or 100s of millions over their career. As if this were not enough, the ownership should also invest their profits from other businesses. This might be the most ridiculous premise I have ever seen on this site.

For starters, I thought the thread was about the organization. Some of you change the question when the answer does not suit you. The theme was changed to Terry Ryan instead of what are the facts associated with the Twins relative success in rebuilding. I was answering this question from Chief. "You seem to be simultaneously claiming the Twins are two years from contention and shouldnt make trades while giving them credit for the impressive speed and completeness of the rebuild , in adjacent paragraphs." The players mentioned shows they organization rebuilt in a reasonable period of time. Apparently, if the answer satisfies the question, the mode here is to change the question.

Yes, I can see you missed the point. It would take 5-6 pages to do this the right way which would be to detail multiple future case scenarios so I will give the reader’s digest view. . The Twins had a very bad team and a depleted farm system 5 years ago. Now …. Sano/Buxton/Rosario/Duffey are just getting started. Two potential MVP types and two other solid contributors. Duffey could even be a 2 or at least a strong 3.Kepler and Berrios, two more potential all-stars on the verge of their MLB careersJay/Meyer/Burdi/Chargios are all getting closePark should be good at a minimum and potentially greatArcia/Walker are low probability but could be awesomeRodgers / Polanco will provide depth or trade valueMurphy is not the chopped liver some like to suggest. There is another wave of good prospects behind this group to provide trade assets for final pieces or extend the period of contention. This team is in a great position compared to where we were 5 years ago but that definitely does not mean they should be making the “all-in” moves some suggest. The fact we are not there yet is no indictment of their rebuild effort. It simply means the process is not complete. Of course, the process not being complete does add a risk element. However, we all know there are no guarantees with prospects or FA or even the players that have been great (Mauer) for that matter but this team is very well positioned for an extended run at contention.

Wow, did you miss the point completely but I guess that helps illustrate the points I was making. Let me try again. 1. People are applauding the Royals when they failed repeatedly. Ryan came back to a good team that fell apart and a depleted farms system. I don’t think anyone was against them building around Mauer and Morneau but that just did not work. This FO has put the franchise in a very good position in a respectable period of time, yet they are characterized by some as incompetent and by a few characterized this way no matter what they do. 2. They have changed some practices. Not as much as I would like, especially in terms of sabermetrics but I also don’t really know the practices and therefore reserve judgement. They have changed drafting practices and their FA spending is at least on par if not more assertive than other teams of their revenue level. The Price or Grienke type FA signings that are used as a barometer here just completely ignore the fact that this type of signing is extremely rare or non-existent amongst teams of moderate revenue depending on how you interpret the facts. 3. Many here are calling for the type of trade the Royals made in 2013 but the Twins are by no means as far along. This Twins team is really at the same point the Royals were in 2011. As a matter of fact, the trades discussed would have depleted the very resources required to get to the point the Royals were in 2013. IMO, some of the aggressive trades discussed here would be the death of what could be a sustained run of contention. Once again you have demonstrated no objectivity. You look at the fact that it took the Royals and Pirates 20 years to do what the Twins have done in 5 years and suggest the approach is flawed. In the process you ignore the countless times the same process has succeeded in a reasonable period of time including most recently the Twins, Mets, Astros and Cubs. Granted the Cubs also have a lot more revenue than the Twins and they utilized FA once the foundation was well-established. Cleveland might prove to be in that category this year as well.

Much of the problem some people have with our FO seems to be around the "they wont go for the huge deal. That is a fair point but the assumption that is a completely valid criticism is quite debatable. For starters, the Twins are basically where the Royals were in 2011 in terms of a rebuild. People here want the Shields trade of 2013 when the Twins are still a couple years away from being ready to contend just as the Royals were not ready to contend in 2011. That's precisely why they traded away there best player instead of trading for a great player. BTW ... They were a year early on the Shields trade but that is beside the point. The problem I have with the "go for broke" mentality here is that its supporters never acknowledge how many of those go horribly bad. Ask the Padres how it worked out for them last year. Billy Beane went all in and it was a horrible disaster. There are many of these examples and they can severely hurt the team for several years. I would like to see more aggression when the reach contention but it would also be nice of the big bang advocates acknowledged the positive side of having a FO that wont put us in the position of having a bad team for the 10-20 year stretches endured by the fans of some other franchises. We also need to consider the FO applied a business model and personnel practices consistent with being near the bottom of the revenue rankings when they were in the dome. It is unfair to assume they wont act in accordance with their new revenue position that is middle of the pack. In fact, they clearly demonstrated a change when they extended Mauer and when they signed Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana. For that matter Park is a divergence from old practices. So, I am going to wait to criticize their failure to makes those "final piece" moves until they are in that position again.

For starters I pointed out that they had a horrendous record for 20 years. How 30 years crept in to this I have no idea and there was absolutely no assertion they were in a rebuild process for 30 years or 20 years for that matter. There were several points made here you ignored them all and came up with something out of the blue. 1. The Twins have rebuilt in a MUCH shorter period of time. 2. The Royals used much less expensive free agents but everyone ignores that fact. 3. They did not trade their prospects for an Ace they traded their Ace for prospects. 4. They have never signed an international player like Sano or Javier. I am not even sure if they have signed one equivalent to Kepler's 800K.

Pelfrey was not such a big deal but I am with you on the Hughes extension. I hated it at the time and I fail to see why it could not wait another year to make that decision. Had they not done the extension, you put him in the pen and May in the rotation.