Major League Ready

Perfectly summed up if you completely ignore the revenue of the team. You and a few others keep talking about the horrid record over the past 17 years. Compared to what? The Yankees and other teams with far more revenue? As Mike stated what really counts is the record over 162 games. Well, here is the win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for all of the teams with similar revenue to the Twins since the turn of the century. Team Win % 90+ wins Oakland ....0.537... 8 Twins ........0.503... 5 Rays.......... 0.499... 1 Jays............ 0.499... 1 Indians...... 0.498... 4 Mariners... 0.492... 4 Dbacks.......0.490... 4 Reds...........0.481.... 3 Marlins..... 0.480.... 1 Brewers.... 0.471.... 2 Pirates...... 0.452.... 2 Royals...... 0.444.... 1 Even with the horrible 4 years we had between 2011 and 2014, only the A’s have a better record and we all know Billy Beane has been the king of what many here like to call dumpster diving. He traded established players for prospects instead of the other way around. IMO, the disconnect is that some of the posters here just refuse to acknowledge that the Twins are at a disadvantage because of the revenue discrepancy of large market teams. How hard is to understand that you can’t spend like a surgeon when you are an accountant?

Mike, Let’s ignore for the moment that you are using a 25 year old example and the economics have changes drastically. How can you possibly a 1 year deal to the 6-10 year type contracts that are the basis of this debate? IMO, you are not even trying to be objective when you make this type of ridiculous comparison.

My problem is that you publically berate the competence of the FO without reasonable consideration of the facts and the context of those facts. In this particular case, you are approaching this with complete disregard for the team’s revenue history. Prior to Target Field the type of transaction you insist upon just was not in the cards. The Twins were amongst the lowest revenue teams in baseball and that just does not go with big FA deals. It also does not go with trading away great young (cheap) talent for big name players. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Rank_1.htm http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html Before you admonish the Twins approach throughout their entire history with statements that include never, you need to consider their revenue position prior to Target Field. The Rays and Athletics have been successful and their approach is basically the opposite of your proposed approach. So, we are really talking about 6 years of history where the Twins have had a little higher level of revenue but still far below the top teams. The Twins started that 6years with signing Mauer to a contract for 8/184 and Morneau had a healthy extension at 15M/yr too. After they crashed in 2011, it simply did not make sense to spend on free agents and it certainly did not make sense to trade young talent for established players. As a matter of fact, they probably should have traded any establish player they had on gone into full rebuild mode. The point being to say they “NEVER” ignores both history and the circumstance of more recent history.

I like this idea because it opens a spot in the rotation for May or Berrios. Upton is also a nice 4th OFerso that's a bonus. SD probably does not go for it but I like it.

That's actually a good point. However, I think there is plenty room for debate about which teams was best over 162 games. Four teams had better records, one of them did win the WS. The other three were in the same division. I would also point out that since the turn of the century, this was Toronto's first 90 win season. The Twins have had five. The Twins are also positioned for a prolonged run of 90 win seasons. Probably not next year but I like their chances for the next several years. Toronto's farm system took a hell of hit of a hit. They better get it tone very soon because they are about to suck again for several years.

So you are saying the strategy you propose has no history of success but you want them to do it anyway. OK, now I finally understand your position. How about if we follow, at least in general terms, the models of the two teams that just ended up in the world series. If you want to complain about the twins. Let's focus on the real problem which is that they have not developed elite pitching.

I think this thread really highlights the differences in how GMs evaluate a strategy vs some or even most fans. If you evaluate the trade based on is Murphy better than LuCroy then it is easy to conclude it was settling for mediocrity. IMO, the relative merit of the trade changes substantially if you evaluate the impact on the team over the life the assets being considered here. LuCroy was likely going to require two premium Berrios or Kepler plus Gordon or Jay or Polanco. Something along those lines. The GM probably starts that evaluation with the 4-5 years that we for sure will not have these young players. There is no guarantee with prospects. Therefore we need to project a range of outcomes. If that projection is at all correct, we know for sure we have substantially hurt or chances to be great in years 4-6. We are trading the very assets we hope will take us from average to a contender. In other words, we are making a decision that likely promotes mediocrity. What about the next 2 years. Can we construct a different strategy that makes us as good or better over the next two years. The GM probably starts this analysis with evaluating the teams readiness to contend for the division. Getting a one game playoff via the wildcard is not worthy of giving up premium assets. This team contended for a wildcard only because a 500 record kept teams in the hunt late. This team statistically did nothing above average. We have many questions marks and a bunch of them would have to go very well to contend. I just don’t know how you look at this team objectively and say they are ready to compete. Next, what are the risks associated with LuCroy’s concussion. Is he confident enough to trade away premium assets for two years of this asset. Is he that big of a game changer? How many wins is he better than Murphy. Can we more than make up for that by signing Park? You can’t complain Ryan does not go for high upside guys and then Complain Park is not a sure thing. Will Buxton/Kepler/Rosario outfield be better than Buxton/Hicks/Rosario. Does this move also make room to give Arcia one more shot? Seems to me that this move was anything but settling for mediocrity. I guess if you look at the first 2 months of 2016, trading for LuCroy would have been better. From some point in 2016 for the next 6-7 years, there is a much better strategy than trading away our future for two years of a concussed LuCroy.

The odds against seem pretty steep but how great would it be if AB Walker significantly improved his pitch recognition. He is big trouble if you have to throw it over the plate. A 3-6 off Kepler/Sano/Park and AB Walker could be SCARY! Is it not about time the Twins get lucky with players developing.

You keep insisting certain teams have followed the successfully model you prescribe but you refuse to provide specific examples of SPs with the exception of Mike Hamton which was a dozen years ago and it was also more likely an example of why small market teams don’t do these deals.We can talk about position players as well but that is a somewhat different discussion. In terms of the teams you cited … Texas is usually around 10th in revenue so they are a poor example. Seattle just signed a $2B TV contract so they are hardly a parallel example. I would add that their payroll for the past 5 years was 93.7M and the Twins was 95.4. Not exactly a good example of a team being more willing to spend. I would also add that the Cano deal could very easily be worse than the Mauer contract. His performance declined substantially last year at age 32 and he has 8 more years to go. It could just be a down year but if this is the start of ascending performance, this deal is an enormous bust. San Diego ranks 26th in payroll over the past 5 years and past 10 years. What Ace SP did they sign? If you are talking about Shields, we have a very different idea of what James Shileds is at this point in his career. Colorado ranks directly behind the Twins in terms of payroll over the past 10 years. Hampton only hurts your case. They did sign Larry Walker 20 years ago. I hope you have a better example of why Colorado should be held up as an example today. Miami – Signed a bunch of guys when they got a new stadium and promptly rolled them the next year when it failed horribly. Is this the model you want to follow? If you are going to be as insistent as you have that acquiring an Ace is easy and practiced by teams with similar revenue, show us some meaningful examples. Preferably in the past 5 or 6 years as the economics has changed.

I looked at Forbes and Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html

I think there is a very basic parameter being ignored here by some posters. The Twins are a roughly average income team. Average income families don’t drive a 7 series BMV and they don’t live in multi-million dollar homes. Why is so hard to understand the teams with more money are going to have an enormous advantage in signing the elite free agents. There is also a matter of the appeal of the big stage larger markets provide and of course, preferential weather conditions. The Dodger spent around $100M last year on players who were on another team’s roster. That happens to be fairly close to the amount of incremental revenue they had over the Twins but that’s not really the point. Take the aggregate difference in revenue amongst the top 10 teams and we are talking about $1.11B in 2014. That is basically the available pool of money for those teams to spend after they have spent an equivalent amount to the Twins. Another point that should be made here is that it is an exceeding bad idea to employ the same roster building tactics as teams with 50, 100, even $200M more in revenue, especially where free agency is concerned. Mid and small market fans complaining about their team not signing elite free agents are really complaining that there team refuses to engage in really bad management practices. Both World Series teams were primarily built from within. The largest FA contract was Granderson at 4/60 and most of the other FAs are the exact type of signings the OP is admonishing. Neither team spent the kind of money the Twins have on FAs. Both teams have players from international signings and the Mets have done particularly well. There are no $4M bonus babies. There is one Kepler type signing amongst the two teams. The most impactful trades for both teams was trading established players for prospects as opposed to the opposite as several posters have suggested here. The Royals got Cain and Escobar for Grienke and the Mets got Syndergaard and D’Arnaud for Dickey BTW ... The Twin’s revenue was a little over $30M below average last year and $20M less than the median revenue.

Good post! That's a pretty unbiased point of view. Your assessment of the Twins readiness to compete is in-line with the assessments I have heard of the twins by baseball analysts. They all talk about the young core developing and the team being a competitor once guys like Berrios and Kepler are added and this young core gets a couple years experience. Therefore, it seems incredibly ill-advised to trade for LuCroy and give up the very assets that likely push us over the top for a player that will only be here for two years. This type of don’t worry beyond next year thinking is exactly the type of strategy that perpetuates mediocrity. That leaves Weiters and Norris in terms of the names bantered around here. Weiters obviously wanted to stay in Baltimore and a strong arguments have been made that there are better ways for this specific team to spend that money. For example, Park is a gamble but Park & Murphy should be >>>>> Suzuki & Weiters. Park also gives us a much needed big bat behind Sano. Weiters has his own risks. He has only played 100 games in the past 2 seasons combined. Norris was a reasonable option but I don’t really see much difference between them and we don’t know what the Padres wanted in return. The Twins stated it was a major objective to stop the running game. AJ obviously was not the answer to that problem. He obviously was also a band aid (1 year) solution.

Dave, When a neutral part with the credibility associated with ESPN says it was an equitable trade and you think it is horrendous, you might want to ask whether you don't understand some aspect of this instead of assuming that others are clearly wrong. Edited by glunn to conform with TD policy.

They have a year or two before he becomes a minor league free agent so they are not forced to make a move. His current trajectory works out well if you ask me. Put him at AAA and see what happens with Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, and Arcia. If they all pan out, halleluiah, figure out which ones to keep if we ever get to this enviable position. What if Mauer is even worse this year? I really hope he bounces back but if he needs to go if he continues to decline. Then, Park goes to first and AB Walker/Arcia are your DH and 4th outfielder. I don’t see a problem

Mike, do you have a link or do you need to be an insider to see this chat session?

My bad, I completely missed the inclusion of Will Smith. This is a good trade for next year but likely a very bad trade long-term. It’s short sighted trading all of those assets. Trade one of Plouffe / Milone for Smith or an equivalent RP and the other for a corner OFer. Make Murphy the everyday catcher and let Pinto back him up. Trade Suzuki for a dozen balls. Use the savings to get Oday or Soria. The bullpen is waaaaay better, the OF problem addressed and you still have Kepler. IMO, that is a much better end result that will have much longer impact and potentially a huge impact if Kepler turns out as we hope. There also might be a chance to sign Austin Jackson to a 1 year deal with the savings if he feels he could rebuild his value. Now I retain even more assets and this could work out great if he has a good year. The Twins might get a compensation pick.

I would guess LuCroy is 1 WAR than Murphy and you want to give up Plouffe, Suzuki, Milone, and Kepler? HORRIBLE idea. Trade Plouffe for a corner OF or stud reliever and it would have equal or more impact than trading for LuCroy and you still have Milone and 6 years of Max Kepler. Then, spend the money saved on LuCroy for a stud reliever or corner OF depending on which one you get by trading Plouffe.

And you know this how? Have you seen him play the OF?

I would think Kepler still starts at AAA. This provides the Twins an opportunity to give Arcia one more shot! Don't get me wrong. He was been terrible last year but there is too much potential there to just flush him for nothing.

Maybe. All I know is I really have no idea and the people making the decision had FAR more than me so I will just reserve judgment. My bigger concern at this moment is what they can do in terms of balancing the roster and addressing needs. My first inclination was that this made no sense. Then, I started to think through potential scenarios as the off-season progresses. There are so many options that it just does not make sense to evaluate any particular transaction until we see the result of the entire off-season transactions.

I agree. I used an extreme point to illustrate that at some point you have to consider it.

These are all good points but Hicks will not cost nearly as much as the FAs. Fans don't care about the money but GMs and owners have a very different point of view. Like you, I am a proponent of starting the season with Hicks and waiting until Buxton is ready before Hicks is made available. However, I think you have to be open to the right deal. It might make sense to deal Hicks for Norris or if someone offered a top of the rotation arm.

That's what I would want the other teams to think if I were the Twins.

I would be very happy getting Norris for Plouffe but I would not touch Shields. The last thing we need is an even more expensive SP in decline phase.

You know better than to use that small of a sample size. Look at the last 5 years and you know it is no even remotely close to last year.