Major League Ready

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.

Until the last few years I think it was fair to say the Twins we a model small market franchise. Its also fair to say the were slow to adapt but if we are fair they are adapting. They drafted power arms and just signed their 2nd $4M international player in the past 5 years. They kept Mauer to the tune of $184M instead of letting him go as they surely would have done in the past. They also just signed an international player we all hope is the guy to bat behinds Sano for a few years.

I think some important details of the Royals building a Championship team are being ignored 1) They had a very long time to collect high draft picks. 94.9 Ave losses/season for 12 yrs proceeding their turn around in 2013 .4345 Win percentage over the 20 years preceding 2013 2) They had (4) 100 loss seasons and (8) 90+ loss seasons in that period 3) They did not sign a single free agent contract anyone here would considered to be a significant expenditure. 4) The FA SPs they did sign were a notch below the SPs the Twins signed. 5) The Twins bought SPs to avoid sucking so bad. The Royals kept their money and accepted sucking. 6) They have never ponied up for a million dollar plus international player unless I just cant find it. Perhaps most importantly, when the Royals were at the point of their rebuild where the Twins are now (2011) They did not go sign an Ace or trade for one. The had one and they traded him away to complete the rebuild process. Some of you ignore the trade most significant in rebuilding the Royals was not the acquisition of a proven player but the trading away of their best player. Is the take away here that some of you would accept sucking as bad as the Royals did for 20 years to win another WS? If not, why are they being applauded?

Yes, we got off track. Have the Twins put a crappy product on the field since the turn of the century? Compared to the NY Yankees, yes. Compared to the teams nearest them in revenue, no. Here is the winning percentage of the teams closest to the Twins in terms of revenue. The Twins are being compared on revenue since target field opened which is obviously unfair given that revenue was not present for two-thirds of the period being compared but it was the most objective comparison. Any objective view of the facts would suggest the Twins have done a better job than any of these teams with the exception of the CWS who have a slightly higher win percentage. Of course, they also have more revenue, especially prior to the opening of TF. Twins ….. 0.503 Tigers …. 0.482 CWS …... 0.509 Nats …… 0.472 Jays …… 0.499 Mariners.. 0.492 Orioles ... 0.459 Astros .… 0.473 Dbacks … 0.490 Reds …… 0.481 Padres ….0.476 Brewers .. 0.471 Rockies ... 0.462 It’s this simple, the odds are stacked in the favor of high revenue teams/markets. They are going to have a better product if measured over 10+ years because they can afford to buy more talent. If this reality or likelihood troubles someone as a fan, they should probably follow a high revenue team or teams rather than be dissatisfied because of the realities associated with following a lower revenue team. We can speak passionately as much as we like about wanting the best product but to expect or demand any lower revenue team to produce or spend on par with a high revenue team is not a product of object thought. That type of thinking is a product of fanaticism, IMO. If you think you are being objective, just imagine your boss gives you $100K advertising budget and another team a $200K budget and tells you he/she expects equal results from your team. What do you think of your boss? I am pretty sure that at minimum, you think he is extremely unreasonable and he certainly did not come to this demand via objective thinking.

I am not sure what they expect but I know that higher revenue teams can support a higher payroll which is advantageous to winning. History is quite clear on this premise. Therefore, I do not expect it just as I would not expect heads to come up more than 50% of the time if I flip a coin. If win percentage is your primary criteria for supporting a team, you should support one or all of the highest revenue teams. BTW … the average cost for a day at the park is considerably higher in NY or Boston so their fans are paying more to produce a winning team. http://www.kshb.com/sports/baseball/mlb-average-ticket-price-fan-cost-index-for-all-30-baseball-teams

I appreciate where you are coming from but I still don’t think it is reasonable to compare the success of one organization to another with twice the resources or twice the revenue. If I assign a project to one team and tell them I expect the same results as another team assigned the same project but given twice the budget, would that be reasonable? Would you feel your boss was reasonable if you were responsible for the team with half the budget? We also need to put this in context. The owners went into this business to make money. Some are more focused on winning than others but none of them would have hundreds of millions or more than a billion dollars of capital tied up in a business that was not going to turn a profit and every team turns a profit most years and team values continue to climb. They don’t have to win as much as the large markets for their MLB team to be a good investment which is their first criteria. The point being it would be perfectly reasonable for an owner to buy a franchise realizing they would not win the same percentage of games as a team in a top market when compared over a number of years. One team, The A’s have won on a relatively equal basis to the top 9 markets. One of the top 9 (cubs) has lost at a pace equal to the bottom revenue markets. The results are quite clear. Therefore, It is perfectly reasonable to want our team to win as much as the top revenue teams but it is not a reasonable expectation on a consistent basis, IMO.

If you are referring to the post I made a while back regarding FA SPs who commanded a 5 or 6 year contract, I simply reported the facts. There has been one 6 year and one 5 year contracts since the turn of the century for teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Of course, Arizona elected to spend part of their billion dollar TV contract on Grienke. You can decide for yourself if they should be lumped in with the rest of the low revenue teams because they were in that category prior to their new TV deal. I think we can say that the top 5 revenue teams have a decided advantage over even the next 5 but that top 10 group has completely dominated the large FA contracts for SPs. If your point is that the top 10 do not have an advantage over the Twins, we will just have to agree to disagree. If we take the closest 4 or 5 other teams in terms of revenue (above & below), have they signed this type of FA SP? The answer is no. You can argue they should but you can’t argue that the Twins have acted differently than the teams nearest them in terms of revenue. Actually, I don’t know, but I would suspect the teams nearest the Twins have not signed 3 contracts equal to Mauer, Nolasco and Sanatana.

I am not sure I understand point 1. If you are somehow surmised my post suggested we not draft international FAs, you did not bother to look very close. I merely pointed out the players receiving the largest bonuses of their time have had a poor track record and it would be interesting to compare results of the “Kepler type” signings or even the guys that got half of what Kepler got. It was stated that I am curious if the return on one $4M guy on average has been a lot lower than investing it in let’s say ten $400K guys. Which form of acquiring talent is being suggested be abandoned. I assume this is from point one which you badly misinterpreted. Point 3 - Are you suggesting that being a high revenue teams do not have an advantage and therefore measuring against the Twins revenue peers is not relevant or are you saying you want them to measure their success against the top revenue teams regardless of if they are at a disadvantage?

I am 100% in agreement that the Twins should spend beyond their international pool but that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. My response was specific to strategy of signing the highest priced international guys. When I looked up all of the players from that top 20 off all-time list and the results were surprising poor. All I was trying to point out two things. One, it MIGHT be a better idea to sign five 800K guys or eight 500K guys instead of one $4M guy. It was stated as something that would be interesting to study. Two, that the Twins just signed another $4M guy so why was the posted complaining the Twins should do this again based on Sano. They obviously did do it again.

So, Dave, if you add Cueto, do you keep Nolasco and wait for injuries to make room for Berrios, May, and Duffey for the next two years, assuming you trade Milone? What about Jay/Meyer/Gonsalves/Stewart and anyone else who rises up through the system for the next 3 years. Once Nolasco is gone, you will still only have two spots open for Berrios, May, Jay, Meyer, Gonsalves, Stewart, and anyone else who rises up before 2019. or Do you cut Nolasco and effectively spend $34M/yr for two years for that spot in the rotation and rely on an injury to make room for Berrios (for the next 3 years) and of course keep May in the pen? Of course, you are still leaving room for two spots over the next 3 years for the SPs listed above. BTW … A year or two ago I looked into the top international signings of all-time. Actually, I thought I posted it here. The vast majority of them never reached the big leagues or were barely above replacement level. You are only considering the data that supports your position (Sano) without considering all of the others that failed. When you look back at all of the top signings prior to Sano, it is certainly not clear that it is the most effective strategy. It would be interesting to look around the league at the top international players and what they signed for as an Amateur FA. I am guessing that teams would be better off signing five “Kepler level” international players than one Sano or twenty $200K signees. Perhaps the more salient point is why the hell are you complaining about this when the Twins just shelled out their entire International pool on Wander Javier? Name another team at the Twins revenue level that has signed two $4M bonus babies in the past 5 years. It would appear you just ignore whatever does not fit the narrative you want to portray?

He could have done nothing. Anyone care to guess how that would have been received?

I am betting that Duffey gets the 5th spot and Milone gets traded. Milone should have value with 3 cost controlled years. No way they trade Duffey given his performance and years of control. BTW ... I would not bet much. It's just a hunch.

Basically, Completely irrelevant to the concept of sunk costs unless he had an injury that was certain to prevent him from performing for the duration of the contract. Where it becomes mercy is if the probability of him failing becomes almost certain. This is literally finance 101 and it used incorrectly on a regular basis by people insisting they have a better idea of how to manage contracts worth 10s of millions and assets worth 100s of millions than the Twins organization. The more salient point here is that this is representative of why many here have such a hard time understanding why the FO does or does not do something. Fans expect the FO to have disregard for profitability, literally. One poster put it as they want them to spend until hurts. This is just incredibly Naïve. The spending philosophies suggested here would be laughed at any organization in this country with a 9 digit revenue. I mean really, just tossing $25 million when there is a reasonable chance to salvage value is a ridiculous premise that is a product of fanaticism. Disregard for the organizations financial well-being and the desire to make every decision as if our window to win is closing is the root of most of the discontent with the FO here. Of course, having partial information is ever present as well.

A lot depends on Hughes and Nolasco. If we get the 2014 edition of them, 78 wins. If we get 2014 Hughes, 81 wins. If we get 2009-2012 Nolasco and 2014 Hughes, 84 wins. Mauer bouncing back seems like a realistic wish. That could add a win or 2. I would love to see Arcia show up in the best shape of his life and surprise everyone with improved defensive play and be the offensive player we all hoped for. That would be big for this team but far less likely than Mauer bouncing back. I will also being pulling big time for JR Murphy just because I think he was judged prematurely here and I don't want Suzuki vesting. There is also plenty of time for a trade for a RP. I would bet even money that Plouffe or Milone get traded for a good RP.

I guess it’s a matter of opinion but I don’t see this as a nit-pick. It’s a simple concept. The money is by no stretch of the imagination a sunk cost in reality but it is sunk in the minds of some fans because they would just prefer the Twins write it off and move on. This is the absolute opposite view point of those who are responsible for the decisions being made. It should be no surprise that those who have disregard for the financial health of the organization are at odds with the people the Pohlad’s made responsible for running their business. So, is it a nit-pick or is the very basis for the discontent displayed here on a regular basis.

The definition is not in the least bit abstract and it is really not complicated at all. Sunk cost are previous expenditures or in some cases payments yet to be made with no chance of being avoided. That is clearly not the case here. If Nolasco rebounds which is certainly plausible, Nolasco’s will be tradeable and therefore his future salary will not be recognized. The cost is not sunk. Please explain the baseball definition of sunk costs for me because it sounds to me like the baseball definition is when the fans would rather you just write it off because that option suits them better. It just boggles my mind that people can say just write off what is the equivalent to 400 years of income for the average individual.

I think you need to look up the definition of sunk costs. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-a-sunk-cost.html

Bingo, this is the heart of the problem. Until Nolasco is gone, there is one rotation spot for Duffey, Milone, and Berrios. They are not sending Hughes to the pen, at least not yet. We will see how serious Hughes is about his performance by what kind of shape he shows up in for spring training. If I were Ryan, I would tell him show up in shape or expect to be in the bullpen and May goes to the rotation. Was Nolasco’s poor performance in his age 31-32 seasons a product of decline or was injury? IDK but most posters here say something along the lines of just eat the $25M owed to Nolasco or that it is sunk cost. It’s not sunk because they could get a major portion of it back if Nolasco performs well the first couple months of the season. If Nolasco performs as he did the 4 years prior to coming to the Twins, not only would they be able to move him but get an asset back in trade. Fans expect their team to have utter disregard for money. They are a business for god sake. Suggest this theme to the business you work for and see how you are received. The persistent insistence that money should not matter is incredibly Naïve when applied so generally. We have 3 players who have starting jobs based on salary as opposed to performance. They are Nolasco, Hughes, and Mauer. They are going to get played the first 2-3 months of the season. My hope is that the start of this season is their last chance. Mauer gets a bench role if he does not improve. Put Park there and replace the DH role. Maybe we get lucky with Arcia. Hughes to the pen if he does not perform and Nolasco either to the pen or cut. Keep Milone or trade him, IDK. I would be inclined to trade him a reliever which should not be a problem. By the AS break, the rotation is probably Santana/Hughes/Gibson/Duffey/Berrios. It might be a good idea to keep Milone around unless you believe Rodgers and Meyer provide adequate depth or perhaps this is part of the reason Dean was put on the 40 man. The OF is Buxton/Rosario/Kepler. The IF is Mauer or Park/Dozier/Escobar/Sano. The DH is either Park, Arcia, or Vargas. By mid-season you add a couple of the power arms we have in the minors and that’s a team with great potential. I will also enjoy watching this come together more than watching the 83-85 win team that is the likely result of following any misguided plan where we sell the farm to compete this year. Plouffe is obviously traded in this scenario. This is all very plausible and the team is finally positioned to contend once these young players mature a bit. They also should have picked up additional assets for Plouffe and Nolasco if we are so fortunate as to have Ricky return to form. If you are wrapped up in being in from to contend opening day you are destined for disappointment. Berrios and Kepler are starting the year at AAA and Buxton will likely be there as well. If you want to get there over the course of the year we are in good shape.

Because Dave is right. Putting Sano at 3B and either Kepler or Arcia in his place in the OF + the return on Pluffe is a significant net gain to the team. We improve offensively, probably defensively, and in the bullpen. Plouffe produced the most runs because he hit in the middle of the lineup and played 3 months more than Sano. A full season of Sano + Park and eventually Kepler not to mention the improvement we expect from Buxton and this is an entirely different offensive team.

Brock, I am with you in terms of being excited about our future. We are not too far away from a Berrios/Duffey/May/Gibson/Santana/Hughes rotation. Obviously, that’s 6 SPs so take your pick which one is out. I still like it. Maybe Hughes to the BP. We are going to have an OF for the next 5+ years with Buxton and whoever wins the other jobs amongst Kepler, Rosario, Arcia, and perhaps Sano. We can hope Walker figures it out too. The Infield needs some work but Dozier/Escobar is a good start with Gordon and others in the future. Hopefully, Sano ends up at 3B and 1B in manned by some combination of Mauer/Park/Arcia and Vargas. We also have a bunch of power arms that will be manning the bullpen in the not too distant future. That sounds like a team that will be a lot of fun to watch.

Dave, Are you saying that Smith's tenure is the reason the Twins organization has outperformed every organization other than Oakland that does not have higher revenue than the Twins?

You can't use "studies all over the internet" to make a point and then say you are not saying it. You are saying it in support of your point. We could run a correlation coefficient but do you need to do any analysis to see that revenue matters? A high school sophomore could look at the win records at tell you there is a strong correlation. What may taint the correlation is that it takes a lot of incremental dollars to make a difference. One could then make a valid argument that revenue was not significantly impactful if there was not a large discrepancy in revenue but that's not reality. So, give it to me straight Mike, Do you really think revenue does not matter?

I hope you are right and it sure seems like a better path than what is being floated.

It is also possible that over the course of the last couple years they have come to the conclusion that Sano not going to make it as a ML 3B or they think he is suspect so now might be the time to try this experiment. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Sano to the outfield but like always we just don't have all the information.