Major League Ready

Can we measure it? Not really. At least not by anything I would call a good scientific method. However, to completely dismiss it is an overly simplistic view. Players, coaches, and FO personnel seem to be quite convinced the influence of some players in the win column goes beyond their individual performance. I was actually moderately against signing him this year but I have to agree with the earlier post that points to the play of Hicks and Rosario who happen to be OFers and the play of the overachievement of the team in general. Perkins and Dozier were here the last 4 years, Hunter and Molitor were not.

He is at .8 (Fangraphs) currently so by season end he is probably .9. You can't take his WAR and then subtract for his bad stretch. That is already calculated into the net number. If his leadership contributed 1-2 wins which is not a stretch, he is a 2-3 WAR player. By today's FA standards, that's a bargain.

Sounds like a good plan. There seems to be OFers available every year on 1 yr deals. Having said this, I still would not completely discount the value of his leadership. With the preface that WAR has flaws, if his leadership contributed to a couple wins, his current war is .8 so he might contribute 3 wins. This is a pretty soft theory but if his leadership contribution makes him a 3 WAR player, that's pretty hard to get on a 1 yr deal. If he really does impact Hicks and Buxton long-term, what is that worth?

Help me understand here, Mike. You are generally pretty pessimistic about prospects in general. Why the confidence in Arcia when he has been just horrible at AAA? I had a man crush on Arcia when he first came up but I would not bet much on him making it now.

That’s really interesting. Keith Law was on Grant Paulson’s show this weekend and they were talking about 1st round high school pitchers that have not panned out and Law went on to say how important it was to not push these guys too fast. Is this a direct contradiction or am I missing something? Contradiction or not, I doubt the Twins are regretting giving Duffey those starts.

The bolded comment was my first thought but who? You have to believe anyone good enough to be interesting is going to require a multi year deal. Do we want to block Kepler when he could be ready before the AS break? I guess that would be fine if the FA in question was willing to settle for a back-up role. However, agents are not dumb. That is going to come up in negotiations and I cant see a player good player signing under those conditions. Do you just keep Buxton here and roll with Hicks, Rosario, and Buxton? He is a bit of a detriment right now but more importantly will rushing him derail his development. There was a lot of criticism here for rushing Hicks. Hicks was not a top 10 prospect but the risk is still resent. Anyone here want to bet on Arcia? (a guy hitting 200 in AAA). Not me. I would break camp with him and give him one last shot but not as a starter.

Kris Attaberry asked him directly if they had plans for Hunter next year. Ryan replied that this was a topic they had not discussed internally and that the option to resign him would be taken up in the offseason. Personally, I would invest those Abs in our young players a shot but I also don’t want to completely ignore the value of leadership and measure him only by WAR. He is 20th in the MLs for RFs. 1/10 better than Matt Kemp which was an option suggested here that would have costs us prospects. The average number of wins predicted by TD followers was roughly 74. How much did Hunters leadership contribute? How much has Hunter’s presence helped with Aaron Hicks. He looks like a different player. He sure has shown them what a 2 strike approach looks like. With Hick’s improved play, they may decide to give Buxton time in AAA and it would be hard to argue his bat could not use more time to develop in the minors and he is probably not the best option to start the year if the goal is to contend next year. If Buxton is not here that changes the OF scenario substantially. Now you have Hicks, Rosario, Kepler, Robinson, Arcia, & Ortiz. If the Cubs did not break camp with Bryant, The Twins surely are not going to break camp with Kepler. If 2016 goes like 2015 he will be up after the Super 2 date. I would love for Arcia to be a good option but he has been absolutely dreadful. I would not give up on him but I also certainly would not count on him. So, I don’t think we are jam packed with options in the OF, at least not to start the season.

Jeremy, Could you elaborate on why you think Kepler ends up at 1B. If his OF defense even borderline acceptable in CF as suggested here, with his hit tool, would he not be more valuable as a corner OFer?

No. You have not given examples. An example would include specific free agent signings of "Ace" SPs signed by clubs with equal or less payroll than the twins. You have simply restated your original assertion. I provided the list of free agent signings in the past 10 years. If it were easy, there would be several similar signings. I don't honestly think there is a single one that qualifies. Which specific contracts do you believe supports your case? Frankly, it looks like you will maintain this position regardless of how overwhelming the facts.

The FA signings for SPs is listed below. Here is what I believe we can conclude with the facts in hand. 1. There are very few Sps of this caliber available. Therefore, the premise that it is easy is not accurate. 2. It is either very difficult for a team outside the top 10 in revenue to sign this type of FA or the GMs feel it is not prudent. 3. Only a handful of different teams have had any success in landing these FAs. 4. Don’t see the Cardinals involved in any contract of this type in the last 10 years. 5. When fans don’t understand they blame the GM or FO. 2015 Sherzer ………. Nationals Lester ………… Cubs Does Lester qualify as an ace? He was very good in 2014 but 2012-2013 he rated 29th in WAR. Shields ………. Padres Is Shields an ace. Shields got 4/74 and Santana was the next highest paid FA pitcher in 2015. 2014 Tanaka ………. Yankees Garza was the 2nd highest paid SP in 2014. $1M more than Nolasco and $2M more than Jimenez. Pretty hard to fault what they did in 2014 when you actually look at the facts. 2013 Grienke …….. Dodgers Sanchez ……. Tigers (resigned with current team so no pertinent to this discussion) I also don’t know that he would have been considered an ace at the time of the signing. E Edwin Jackson was the next highest paid FA pitcher in 2013 2012 CJ Wilson ……. Angels 5/77M Darvish ………. Rangers 6/60M Buehrle ……… Marlins 4/58M There was obviously some uncertainty about Darvish in the market I would not think anyone considered Buehrle an ace, especially at 36 forward. 2011 Cliff Lee …….. Rangers 5/120M The next highest paid SP in 2011 was actually a relief pitcher (Soriano (35M) 2010 Lackey …….. Angels 5/82.5 Randy Wolfe was the next highest paid SP at 29.75M 2009 Sabathia ……. Yankees Burnett …….... Yankees 2008 Pettite ……… Yankees 1yr 16M. The highest paid SP was actually Silva’s deal with the Mariners @ 4/48M 2007 Zito ………….. Giants 7/126 Matsuzaka ..... Boston 6/52

This is why I asked for examples. If Dave or anyone else can provide a reasonable number of valid examples of other teams with equal or less revenue than the Twins are getting this done, his criticism of the FO and Terry Ryan is valid. I don’t believe that it has been done with anything close to the frequency that would suggest that it is easy. As a matter of fact, if it has not been done, it would be reasonable to conclude that GMs feel it is financially imprudent for mid or small market teams to sign these players or they simply opt for bigger markets and the endorsement potential / fame associated with those markets. Since Dave is unwilling to support his point. I am going to look up the FA signings for the last 10 years. I would like to know if the front office is in fact incompetent as Dave suggests or is the disconnect with those who blame the FO for everything a product of their own lack of understanding.

Perhaps “example” was unclear. I was asking for evidence of your point that someone similar to David Price had been acquired in free agency by teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Saying that it occurred is not an example. So, let me be perfectly clear. Give us specific examples of players of this caliber that were acquired by teams outside the top 10 revenue teams. To make it parallel, the requirement should be during a run of 90 loss seasons but let’s see how many you can come up with before we actually ask for a truly parallel comparison. BTW … the Giants, Cardinals, and Rangers are top 10 revenue teams. The Diamondbacks and Mariners just signed TV deals that put them well ahead of the Twins in terms of revenue. If you have examples prior to their new found wealth, great. BTW … I am not talking about teams retaining an ace. For example, the Cardinals extending Wainwright. The whole point here is attracting FA talent not retaining it.

Dave, Perhaps you can give us examples of pitchers of the same stature of price that have signed with teams outside the top 10 revenue markets. Your original post suggested that the Twins could "easily" sign someone of this stature. If this is true, there should many examples. BTW ... I am with you on Kazmir. That would have been a better signing than Santana IMO if for no other reason than the number of years. The one I don't understand is extending Hughes and signing Santana.

How about a little love for Duffey too.

On one hand this not nearly as simple as some suggest. One the other hand, if your team has 50 or 100 or even $200M less in revenue then the teams they are bidding against, your team is going to lose that battle in the vast majority of instances. Its not that complicated. People who earn a median income usually don't live in million dollar homes. It's not that complicated.

How can you possibly make this statement in any form of fact. I have heard literally thousands of these statements over the course of 20+ years in consulting and 98% of them have little or no validity. If you want to postulate that the FO is directing Dozier's approach, ok. To make a statement with this degree of certainty is ridiculous.

I think you are right, Chief. A little time off would not hurt but he tries to pull absolutely everything. The pitchers and defense has adjusted. It also does not help that he swung at ball 4 three times in one at bat last night

1) What ace was going to come here at the time of these signings? Name one. The team was among the worst in baseball. If you have ever listened to the “Front Office” show on satellite radio, you have heard GMs and former GMs talk about the fact that elite free agents pick where they want to go (2 or 3 teams) and then they let the market forces get them the dollars they want. 2) The rotation at the time was abysmal. The team era was among the worst in baseball. As a result, the team was among the worst in baseball. Even if they could have signed an ace, having a true front of the rotation guy would have had little impact in making this a respectable team much less a contender. What they needed was a number of arms. 3) Acquiring an ace at the time of the Hughes and Nolasco signings would have meant paying someone long past their prime. So, we would have had this ace as we rebuilt. It really was not reasonable to expect this team would be back in contention by 2015. Therefore, the most likely case scenario would have that FA player would have had his best years when we still sucked and been a 3/4 or worse by the time we were hopefully competing. Having said all of this, now we could use an ace. Hopefully they can dump Nolasco. The mistake with Hughes was not signing him. It was extending him. It is still possible that we can move 2 of our 3 FA SPs over the next year or year and a half and eventually sign a front of the rotation guy. This team will have added even more young talent by then and also gained some of the experience necessary to win division title and compete in post season. Just look at Houston this year and KC a couple years ago if you think they still don't need additional experience. So, lets no complain until the thing actually plays out. So now some of you want to b1t@^ when the problem was fixed adequately to get us in contention. I would add that the FO went out and got guys that actually should have contributed much more to this return to contention than they have. However, they did not rely on these players alone. They added Milone and Pekfrey which many here did nothing but complain about but the fact is they had more to do with us being in contention than Hughes and Nolasco. The front office took a horrible team and made it into a contender it what is a very reasonable period of time. This year alone Hicks, Rosario, Escobar, and Sano have proven that they will be valuable pieces going forward. Duffey also looks like he is an important part of the future. We have two guys close to contributing in Berrios and Kepler that look like they could be all-star in the future. In other words, they build this contender without giving away assets and now are in position to make a sustained run.

With the preface that this would have been a difficult sign, go after Ian Desmond instead. Why give up assets and pay the big money. He is a year younger and less injury prone. Yes, Desmond will be in big demand but as a general rule a thumb it just makes more sense to me avoid paying for a guy who signed a big deal with someone else and then also giving up significant assets. Here is the really good news. It looks like we have a solution at SS. Let's focus our efforts on a C and RPs.

Mike, I don't know exactly what people are thinking because like the rest of us evaluating the FO, we don't have all the facts. However, I evaluate this function for the largest companies in the US so I think I offer a very qualified opinion when I say many of the positions that offered here with great passion would get you thrown out of the room (figuratively speaking) in the real world. I would add that the financial part of the equation gets very little consideration. So, go ahead and come with the "really" stuff but the fact is that much of the "FO has no clue" stuff is offered without any actual experience managing similar situations.

I think the advocates of these moves just don’t give enough weight to the potential down side. If a Tulo type trade bomb it is fairly devastating for several years. Tying up those dollars limits other moves, including locking up some of the young guys that could be our core for many years. Then, what if those prospects you give up really pan out? Ouch. It could easily be the difference between making the playoffs or not in several seasons. The biggest problem is that the potential plus side all rests on one guy and one guy can get hurt or not perform. Yes, the prospects route might not pan out but that failure does not cost 20M+/yr. You also have several prospects in one of these deals. If just one pans out decent it makes up for some of the plus side potential of the deal and you still have 20M+ to invest elsewhere. I just don't think the model works for a mid market team to give up substantial assets and pay this type of money. If you are going to pay that much then go get a free agent and keep your young talent. That young/cheap talent is essential when you are paying others big money. Baseball is a little different than other businesses. These kinds of deals get done. However, anyone who has had P&L responsibility for this level of investment won’t touch this type of deal in what I will call a normal business for lack of a more definitive description. This is probably why I said HELL no instead of just no.

Since 7/13 .... wRC+ OPS Escobar ........ 137 874 Tulo .............. 85 684

I am not a Maurer supporter but it’s not as simple as putting him on the bench. For starters, anyone that has ever managed a 9 figure P&L would throw you out of the room if you suggested any plan that does not entail giving your $23M a year investment every opportunity to perform. I would like that rope to be pretty short but I don't have to pay him $69M to sit on the best the next 3 years. In addition .... 1. Now you have $23M + Plouffe in Arb years 1,2, & 3 so you have $33M/yr by his 3rd arbitration year wrapped up in first base. That is absurd 2. Kennys Vargas will likely outperform Pouffe offensively as early as next year and he has actually looked pretty decent defensively. It would make way more sense financially than to keep Plouffe and Vargas could be exactly what we need to hit behind Sano. 3. Plouffe is only marginally better offensively than Mauer this year and Mauer’s career numbers are much better. It would not be a big surprise if he outperformed Plouffe offensively next year. 4. The casual fans would not be thrilled if Maurer was treated this way. This is a business and you don’t p%$$ off you customers if there is a reasonable alternative. 5. Plouffe should bring a decent return. I would be nice if it is immediate but trade for the best return. The assets can be used to trade for something that is valuable in the near future. Managing assets based on how quickly they return versus how much they return is patently incompetent. Billy Bean’s mastery of this concept has allowed him to field contenders with the smallest revenue stream in the league.

Mike, I think there is another difference. The approach you advocate costs $20M less annually. That would buy a very good bullpen without giving up assets. I would also bet that Berrios or May will have a higher WAR in 2017 and 2018 if they get the chance to start.

We have to give May a chance. He has too much potential as a starter. I could also see moving Gibson instead of Milone if the return on Gibson was right, like a catcher.