Major League Ready

Simply the turn of the century. Take out the years since they gained more revenue from target field and they look better too. Someone referenced the last 17 years and I rolled with the 2000s. Nothing more nothing less.

My mistake. When I put together these win records a couple months ago I went back to 2000. Then I referenced 17 years because used that reference here lately which is of course goes back one year further. If that's your takeaway here, you are not making any attempt at objectivity.

This is a reasonable point. No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes. EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes. How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict. Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict. All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves. The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us. Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO. Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams. Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. If you compare the Twins organization record with other teams in the both half of the revenue ranking over the past 17 years, the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s. If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success. Oakland -- 0.537 Twins ----- 0.503 Jays ------- 0.499 Rays ------ 0.499 Indians --- 0.498 Mariners -- 0.492 Dbacks --- 0.490 Reds ------ 0.481 Marlins --- 0.480 Padres --- 0.476 Astros ---- 0.473 Brewers -- 0.471 Rockies -- 0.462 Orioles --- 0.459 Pirates ---- 0.452 Royals ---- 0.444

This is a reasonable point. No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes. EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes. How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict. Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict. All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves. The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us. Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO. Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams. Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. If you compare the Twins organization record with teams of similar of less revenue over the 17 year period, the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s. If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success. Oakland -- 0.537 Twins ----- 0.503 Jays ------- 0.499 Rays ------ 0.499 Indians --- 0.498 Mariners -- 0.492 Dbacks --- 0.490 Reds ------ 0.481 Marlins --- 0.480 Padres --- 0.476 Astros ---- 0.473 Brewers -- 0.471 Rockies -- 0.462 Orioles --- 0.459 Pirates ---- 0.452 Royals ---- 0.444

Point taken.

I just don’t understand how anyone can have a real strong opinion one way or another. I am guessing the Twins have a formal process where all of the talent evaluators are brought to together. Collectively this group who have observed all of the candidates for the 40 man for thousands of hours collectively come to a decision on who to include or not. I can appreciate one of the basic premises of this site is to debate who to construct the team but to get bent out of shape and to assume any of us has a better idea of which players to put on the 40 man is absolutely ridiculous for anyone who does not have the credentials to be a scout and has seen the players in question numerous times.

All very good questions. I would add ... what would of the detractors had said if the Twins would have done nothing until now and chosen Bethencourt? I am willing to bet that would have been deemed incredibly incompetent.

Just to be clear … Are you suggesting that the Twins and Diamondbacks are in the same financial position when the Dbacks just signed a TV contact that gives them absolute assurance of an addition billion dollars over the next 20 years? Even if we accepted this as an example which is ridiculous premise, that would be the 2nd such occurrence since 2000. If you are not willing to concede that is the definition on an anomaly than I don’t know what to say other than I would love to see you support that statement in the board room.

OK. I will bite. What Twins prospects would be the equivalent of what AZ gave up and what would it take to get LuCroy? I think we can start with Swanson and Buxton being equivalent. Inciarte has 3.3 war in 132 games last year as a rookie. It would take a very good prospect to trade for him alone. Which Twins prospects are the equivalent of the other prospects AZ gave up?

I was curious when Dave W insisted that it was common for teams with equal or less revenue than the Twins to sign elite FA SPs so I looked into it. Obviously, it is not at all common. I even posted this lit with less detail but it did not stop the critics from insisting these contracts were common. There was no intention to suggest that the only way to acquire this type of SP is free agency. It was meant to break down the one aspect that could be addressed with hard facts. Two years ago I put up a post or at least I think I put up a post with a list of the playoff teams and the source of their SPs. It was overwhelmingly through development or trades when the players were still minor leaguers. Yes, the Twins could trade for such a SP. As we witnessed with the Shelby Miller trade, and this is true in general, there is a substantial premium applied to “won now” deals. That’s really the rub here. There are a number of people on this site that put very little emphasis on anything beyond this year. I see it literally every day as a consultant. If we were a team with a window that is closing that might make sense. However, we are a team that has not yet graduated our best prospects with the exception of Sano. The scenario some want us to follow is to trade away the very assets that should make us a contender. Let’s say we traded for LeCroy and Miller. The likely cost would have been Buxton/Berrios/Kepler and a 2-4 addition good to very good prospects. Would we be likely to win the central? No. We would be hoping Kansas City underperforms or is injured and Cleveland does not find any hitting and age catches up with Detroit’s key players immediately. So, in other words, push all-in on assets with 2-3 years of control (LeCroy/Miller) and trade away the platers that could makes us a contender for the next several years for a shot at a wildcard which provides a 50/50 shot at a playoff series. While fans scream for this kind of management, it would incredibly incompetent. As for the players that only command 3-4 year deals, the twins signed arguably the best SPs of that type last year and the year before. The premise that a team like the Twins can have $23M in dead weight with Mauer and still afford to jettison the players they have invested so heavily is a product of fanaticism.

http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/BergBros/MISC%20Photos/Free%20Agent%20SPs_zpspntptzw5.jpg

Prior to this year, since 2000, eleven free agents starting pitchers have signed contracts of six or more years with seven different teams participating in contracts of this length. Of course, that means 23 different teams have not signed a 6+ year contract since 2000. If we reduce the requirement to 5 years, an addition 9 players have signed such contract. However, it should be noted that two of the contracts were $20M or less and two more resigned with their original team. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that 5 additional contracts involving three additional teams have been involved if we reduce the length of contract to five years. This brings the total of teams participating in 5+ year contracts to 10 and the number of teams that have not participated since 2000 to 20. Of course this information does not mean much in terms the relative revenue ranking of the club at the time they signed the player. I used Forbes back to 2007 but could not find rankings older than 2007 so from 2000-2006 I used the information in the link below that shows average revenue rank 2000-2009. • 11 players have signed 6+ year free agent contracts since 2000 (16 years) • 7 different teams were involved in the six+ year contracts o Yankees 3) Sabathia, Tanaka & Mussina o Dodgers 2) Greinke & Ryu o Cubs 1) Lester o Nationals 1) Scherzer o Giants (1-Zito o Rockies (1)-Hampton o Braves (1)-Smoltz o Rangers (1)-Darvish • 9 players have signed 5 year contracts (2 for less than $20M & 2 resigned) • 6 Team signed 5 year deals / 4 that did not sign 6 year deals o Angels 2) Lackey & Wilson o Tigers 1) Sanchez o Phillies 1) Lee o Yankees 1) Burnett o Rangers 1) Park o Royals 1) Meche Exactly one 6+ year contract (Hampton) and one 5 year contract (Meche) have been signed by teams outside the top 10 in revenue since 2000. Complaining about this is like complaining that someone with an average income it driving a 7 series BMW

There is a critical assumption here that Shields is the 3 WAR starter from 2014 vs the 1 WAR starter from 2015. If not you given up Plouffe and a top 100 prospect and added $17M to payroll for a 1 WAR starter and a LHRP. When a 33y/o SPs performance drop it could just be an off year or it could be the inevitable decline. May is still in the pen and adding Berrios requires an injury. Put Nolasco in the bullpen. Start May. Trade Pluffe for value (you decide what that means). Keep Polanco at least for now. Put the $17M toward Upton, Cespedes, Gordon or Fowler and make Rosario your 4th OF or a trade chip once Kepler is established. The net is May or Berrios in the rotation are likely better than Shields over the next 3 years. Any of the OF options mentioned are better than Upton. We pick up assets for Plouffe and keep Polanco.

It also a little easier to send a 13M/yr guy to the bullpen as opposed to a 22M guy

I thought the Padres ran him through waivers last year but I could be mistaken. He certainly has value just not 3/65. I hesitate to guess what he would get as a FA. Lackey got 2/32 but he was much better than Shields last year.

Pederson has a lot higher ceiling than Rosario. Their minor league number are not even close and Pederson hit 26 HRs last year. His average was 210 last year but his hit tool is much better than what he produced in 2015. Point being that the Twins would probably have to include another top prospect beyond what you have listed to equal the reported offer by the Dodgers. Perhaps Jay or Polanco. It appears the Marlins are just trying to see if someone will make this type of ridiculous offer. Terry Ryan or any other GM is going to look at 6 years of control on 4-5 of their best prospects vs 3 years of control for Fernandez and say absolutely no way. Fernandez is phenomenal but 22-24 years of service from very good players is much more valuable than 3 years of Fernandez. The Dodgers would be much better off to get all of those great prospects in place and then go sign Fernandez in three years.

You make a good argument. Maybe they cant get rid of Nolasco even eating half his contract. No doubt the best case scenario is he rebounds and we trade him at the 2016 deadline. He could be moved to middle relief when Berrios is ready if he does not bounce back. That's probably the best way to manage our assets.

There relievers are gone now but they were options when this thread started. I was assuming the same premise used here frequently that we can get any FA we want if we offer the money. Granted, this is fantasy baseball and was offered more in concept that reality. The premise is still valid. Why do I want to take on even more risk and assure that there is one rotation spot for May / Duffey / Berrios for the next 3 years. I think it makes more sense to have May pitch 180 innings instead of 60 innings. IMO, the team would be better over the course of the next 3 years with some combination of May/Duffey/Berrios (maybe Meyer) over the next 3 years and no James Shields or Ricky Nolasco than we would be with James Shields. Add an intelligent use of the $41/M over the next 3 years and I don’t think it is even close. The option without Shields also has less risk as it depends on 2 of Duffey/May & Berrios working out. As always you are looking at the immediate term. I guess we could trade Gibson. Should we trade a 27 y/o who was better than Shields last year and is also a guy coming into his best years as opposed to a guy who is probable to be in decline phase?

I think there is a much better alternative than to make our 2yr/25M problem a 3yr/63M problem. With the crazy money going to FA SPs, you have to believe there is a team that would take Nolasco if we paid 12 or the 25M owed him. So, instead of trading for Shields, I take the $41M saved a buy 3 very good relievers for 3 years. Then, I have room for 3 of Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, and May instead of only having room for two of them for the next 3 years. Every single one of them is likely better than Shields in 2017 & 2018. If you don’t like the bullpen angle, put the $41M toward signing Sano to an extension now.

It makes room for May/Berrios so that is a real positive. Having a viable 4th OFer is better than having Nolasco take a spot from May or Berrios. It also provides a bridge to Buxton and Kepler. I would prefer Nolasco to SD and C prospect to the Twins and use that $18M on a FA OFer, trade Plouffe, and put Sano at 3B. It would make more sense to give Austin Jackson $18M on a 1 year deal. He is young enough to play this year hoping to build his value with a big year.

Playing Sano, especially a slimmed down Sano is much different than playing an OF that “features both Sano an Arcia”. You are now defending what you said with a narrative that is very different than your original comment. The fact you don’t see the relevancy of the difference in maturity of the two teams is exactly the point. After a long period of futility, the Royals graduated a number of high picks. They also traded their best player for Cain and Escobar who were just getting started at the ML level. That team has now matured and these players are in their prime. The Twins have only graduated one of our top prospects (Sano). Buxton is not ready yet and Berrios/Kepler have not even made their debut. Duffey just debuted in August. The point here is not the exact KC model but that they graduated a core group of players and traded a great player for two of their best players. The 2016 Twins are in the same position developmentally as the Royals were in 2011. Those players need to mature into ML players. The team is not ready to contend the moment they get here. Look at the Mets and Pirates. Basically the same story. There are a lot of people here that want to manage the team as if they are late in the window of their opportunity to win. The fact is that window has not even begun. Managing the team as if we are ready to contend is a mistake. The team and its assets should be managed to create the opportunity to contend for a number of years. Plouffe is a good example. If they truly believe Sano can play 3B, changing your superstar’s position to accommodate an average player is ridiculous, especially when that average player can be traded for assets that will help build a contender when this team matures in a couple years.

They also don't see to value speed/defense like the Royals did either, as they just shipped off Hicks (most SB on the team, great D) and seem to be content at the moment to roll with an OF featuring both Sano and Arcia. This is both presumptive and short-sighted. We don’t have nearly enough information to know what the Twins have planned so to say they plan to roll with Arcia and Sano is ridiculous. Maybe they intend to trade Plouffe for a corner OFer and start the season with Buxton in center and Rosario in a corner. Maybe they will take a look at a FA. Who knows? You are also presuming they have to have the ideal situation on opening day. By June the outfield is probably Buxton/Rosario & Kepler. This team still has a ways to go before they can be compared to the Royals. It does not make sense to manage assets as if we are a team with a window to win that is closing. Yes, Buxton has debuted but he is not ready and two other key additions (Berrios and Kepler) have yet to debute. Sano and Duffey have yet to play a full season. This team is just getting started with the players that will allow this team to contend. ROYALS C Perez 25 Intl - Signed for 65,000 as a 16 y/o / Debut 2011 1B Hosmer 25 Drafted - 1st round / 3rd pick 2008 / Debut 2011 2B Infante 33 FA – 4/30.25M 2B Zobrist 34 Trade – Deadline Rental SS Escobar 28 2011 Trade/Grienke – Had played 192 ML games 3B Moustakas 26 Drafted – 1st round / 2nd pick 2007 / debut 2011 LF Gordon 31 Drafted 2ND Overall 2005 CF Cain 29 2011 Trade/Grienke – Played 43 ML games before trade RF Rios 34 FA – 1/9.5M DH Morales 32 FA – 2/17M SP Ventura 24 Internation 2008 for $28,000 / Debuted 2013 SP Duffy 26 Drafted 3rd round 2007 / Debuted May 2011 TWINS C Murphy 24 2nd round 2009 by Yankees / Debute 2013 1B Mauer 32 1st over pick in 2001 / Debute 2004 2B Dozier 28 Drafted 8th round 2009 / Debute 2012 SS Escobar 26 Internation 2006 by CWS / Debuted 2011 3B Plouffe 29 Drafted 1st round (20th) / Debuted 2010 DH Sano 22 Internation 2009 / Debuted July 2015 LF Kepler 22 International 2009 / Not debuted CF Buxton 21 Drafted 2nd 2012 / 2014 debute but not ready RF Rosario 24 Drafted 2010 4th round / Debuted 2015 SP Berrios 21 Drafted 20012 (comp pick for Cuddy) Not debuted SP Duffey 24 Drafted 5th round 2012 / Debute August 2015

I think what is most relevant to this discussion is what he should weigh in great shape, how difficult will it be for him to get there, and is he committed to doing what it takes to get in that condition. I was encouraged because the context of the discussion was that The Twins, Sano, and I am guessing his representation have all agreed on this plan. I still prefer the conditioning be put to use at 3B and that the OF consists of Buxton / Rosario & Kepler b June. Use April and May to give Arcia once last chance. Maybe we pick up Austin Jackson on a 1 year "make good" deal. He is young enough that might make sense for him. BTW ... I would like to see a ripped version of Sano show up to spring training. I think his athleticism will shock some people if he is in peak condition. The man is a freak.

Ryan was interviewed on the MLB Network Hot Stove. He said that they (The Twins and Sano) went into this off-season with a plan to trim him down to a weight more conducive to the defensive part of the game. Ryan said Sano wants to be a good defender and is on-board with this plan. It should be noted that the weight loss would be beneficial to playing 3B as well so this is not definitive proof the only plan is to move Sano to the OF.

I guess I was interpreting the comments here a little differently. I did not think anyone was suggesting he was fat, just that 20-25 pounds lighter would make a difference. 20lbs off that frame does not seem like much. He sure looks quite a bit faster than Plouffe or Mauer but it would be nice to have stop watch times at different distances. I thought people were just implying that his athleticism combined with getting in great shape and he is probably considerably better in terms of athleticism than some of the stiffs we have had in the OF the last few years. I think he would be better than Delmon if Sano was 290.