Major League Ready

Good point. At the time, I wrote here that I wished they could have landed Harry Ford but I just don't think they were willing to give up a better prospect than Gonzalez for Polanco. My recollection was Gonzalez was #5 in their system and harry Ford was #4 but much tougher to pry a good catching prospect away. I would have taken Ford/Bowen instead of Gonzalez/Bowen/Topa/Disclafani in a heartbeat. That said, Ford did not do quite as well at AA but he is still a great prospect and that kind of athlete as a catcher would be great to have. Polanco was basically a replacement level player last year. The Twins lost nothing in trading him even if some fans have a hard time accepting that reality. The Twins sold high and the money was better spent elsewhere. They should have given them Kepler too and asked for Ford.

I don't think anyone would debate that a team can spend a lot and fail. It's no guarantee. In the case of the 2024 Dodgers, they were able to acquire their most impactful players because of a revenue advantage. The players that produced more than 2 WAR are listed below. The Twins and most other teams had absolutely no chance of landing these players. The 2024 Dodgers provide very little insight into how the MN Twins can/should build a winning roster. 2024 Dodgers WAR $ Shohei Ohtani 9.1 46.7 Mookie Betts 4.4 30.0 Freddie Freeman 4 27.0 Teoscar Hernández 3.5 23.5 Miguel Rojas 2.8 Will Smith 2.7 Max Muncy 2.4 Tyler Glasnow 3.8 25 Yoshinobu Yamamoto 2.8 13.33 Gavin Stone 2 2 167.53

They need to make some changes but I would also point out that Cleveland ran back the same team and went from 76 to 92 wins. They made no significant trades or free agent signings. Ther point being that teams don't assume the same results. I would bet they anticipate improvement from certain players. Of course, those are the players other teams want in trade.

Just opinions but there is close to zero chance Ober is traded. Converting Jax back to a starter is more likely than him being traded. Lee is not traded because his significant struggles at the ML level would probably mean selling low at this point. I could see it with Wallner given the arrival of Rodriquez is on the horizon, but it would seem far more likely after Rodriquez gets established.

Ideally, you get elite offensive production out of 1B/DH but 750 is not the problem it's being made out to be here either. We should be equally concerned with solidifying 2B and even 3B. I think Rodriquez gets here by June 1 and the OF gets solidified at least in terms of roster allocation. Obviously, he has to prove himself at the ML level. We also have a 5th SP spot to solidify. 1B does not stand out in terms of question marks.

Sure, Refsnyder has faced as many RH as LH pitchers. Over the last 3 years his combined wRC+ is 122. I will take 22% above average when replacing a "full-time" starter in a heartbeat. Then, come playoffs, that ability to start the guy that punishes LH pitching will be a huge advantage.

In the past 25 seasons, Oakland has a .518 win percentage and ten 90-win seasons. That's better than the Astros / Giants / Angels / Phillies / Rangers / Cubs and every team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue. Much better than the Twins. Of course, a couple of these teams have WS wins but Oakland has put a good product on the field more often than a lot of organizations with a lot more revenue. The Padres, Cubs, and Blue Jays combined have the same number of 90-win seasons.

He probably gets a shot the first couple months of the season for 2 reasons. 1) He had a wRC+ of 110 after the deadline last year. He has a grand total of 257 ML PAs so it's not too hard to believe he could improve upon that post deadline batting line. That would be worthy of a bench role especially if he can improve his defense. 2) Rodriquez is probably not far off. A third might be this team is so lacking in speed.

While you just ignore that these other leagues are thriving with a much greater parity.

Add a high leverage LH RP to Jax / Duran / Sands / Alcala / Stewart / Topa and either Varland or Winder and the BP will look pretty darn good.

You have a remarkable ability to see only what you want to see.

Why not examine how Cleveland built a "historically great" BP. Are their practices better than the Twins or is it execution. That would seem to be the pertinent question.

Someone needs to tell the NFL and NBA they don't understand how to grow their sport.

How about supporting what's good for the game and good for fans in all markets. Do you really not understand that a higher luxury tax threshold widens the disparity or do you just not care what's good for fans and the game as long as it's bad for owners in your mind. BTW ... The owners still are very much in control of their profits. It just makes them even more likely to forego signing the players we complain they don't sign.

We interpret the results differently. I see the bottom 10 are low revenue teams. The top 5 are high revenue teams. A handful of teams with above average revenue have not performed above average. That's not exactly surprising of suggestive. 3 teams have beaten the odds, and we should note the way they built those winnings teams contradicts what most posters here advocate.

Listed below are # of 90/95 wins seasons and win percentage since 2000. Cleveland/Oakland/Tampa have somewhat overcome the revenue disparity. The Cubs/Giants/Phillies/Angels have underperformed a bit given their revenue. 90 95 Wins Wins Win % 1 Yankees 17 13 0.579 2 Dodgers 14 7 0.567 3 Cardinals 13 8 0.552 4 Red Sox 13 8 0.543 5 Braves 12 6 0.546 6 Cleveland 11 5 0.516 7 Oakland 10 6 0.518 8 Tampa 9 5 0.518 9 Astros 8 2 0.514 10 Giants 7 4 0.520 11 Angels 7 5 0.515 12 Phillies 6 2 0.512 13 TWINS 6 3 0.502 14 Mariners 6 2 0.499 15 Brewers 6 3 0.493 16 Rangers 6 3 0.491 17 Cubs 5 1 0.499 18 Dbacks 5 1 0.484 19 Nationals 5 2 0.484 20 White Sox 4 2 0.552 21 Mets 4 2 0.501 22 Tigers 4 2 0.464 23 Orioles 4 2 0.453 24 Blue Jays 3 0 0.501 25 Reds 3 1 0.471 26 Rockies 3 1 0.462 27 Padres 2 0 0.478 28 Pirates 2 0 0.447 29 Marlins 1 0 0.468 30 Royals 1 1 0.436

Why would you complain about revenue disparity and then endorse a post supporting something that increase the disparity?

So you are OK with things that are bad for the game as long you think it's hurting the owners? Do you even understand where the luxury tax money goes? Half of it goes to the players retirement fund. The other half is redistributed to teams with lesser revenue. How could you possibly be against an international draft? You seem to be much more focused on hating rich people than what could/would improve the league.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post. You posted teams who "pushed" their spending to literally half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and suggested there is not a problem. You want to see what you want to see.

You have completely changed the context of the discussion. The discussion was revenue disparity in the league. Let's just forget about the Twins. Do the Dodgers have double the revenue of the other 14 teams in the bottom half of revenue or not?

The players took a very strong stance on pushing the luxury tax threshold much higher which of course increased the gap in spending. They also wanted a year less of team control which would have also been a blow to smaller markets and it was the players who vetoed an international draft. During the CBA I looked up the profiles for many of the owners. I would suggest you take a look at these profiles and see if you still think they need your advice on how to manage their investment.

The top teams have literally double the revenue of teams like the Twins and they are spending double the teams you mentioned even in their highest years. I don't understand using examples of teams highest payrolls at half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and concluding the revenue inequity is not a problem. BTW .... Over the past couple of decades, teams in the bottom half of revenue that achieved 90 wins produced 15% of their WAR from free agents. The teams with by far the most 90 win seasons produced 11% of their WAR from FAs. Free agency is a good tool to fill a hole or two but it's not been a big part of roster building for successful low revenue teams. I am just reporting what has happened so don't shoot the messenger.

My question was pretty simple. Do these match-ups exist in the playoffs? Of course they do! If these players are not rostered, why don't the teams just play the "best" 8 guys + DH? The Twins have an entire analytics department and a front office that disagrees with you. Go ahead and believe the problem is they don't understand the situation as well as you.

So instead of whining, state your interpretation. In other words, defend your position by explaining how you don't roster a certain kind of player yet have that type of player to match-up in the playoffs. That would have more value than complaining that I would have the nerve to challenge your position.

You have said over and over you would only roster players that were good against RHP because they represent 75% of IPs. (It's actual 72%) and take your lumps against LHP. So, how do you not roster these players yet have them to platoon in the playoffs? Your strategy assumes you can accumulate 13 starter caliber LHH players. That's the first failed assumption. It' shard enough to get 8 that are league average or above. Most bench players are bench players because they are not above average against RHP. Ideally you have LHH that hit LHP but when you don't, giving a decided advantage away 28% of the time is a really poor strategy. The only way this gap is bridged is if you have a lot of injuries to your best LHHs and guess what, a lot of injuries is very likely to derail any team. Even if the Twins spend like they did last year, the total is $6m per player for 26 players. The Dodgers or the Yankees can spend. $6M on 20 players and fill all their holes with $30M AAV players. Even the Dodgers and Yankees utilize match-ups. Expecting to construct a team of all above average players against RHP, especially with below average revenue is fantasy baseball.