Major League Ready

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.

During the playoffs but not so hugely different because Riverbrian is saying he would not roster these players. How could playoff teams have players for match-ups if they didn't have them on the roster?

Are the playoff teams just taking their lumps or are they utilizing match-ups?

I would not want to rely on Camargo and you are just ignoring reality when you dump $10M for Vasquez. He is worth virtually nothing so the savings would be negligible. You also don't improve the "backups" by getting rid of Castro for DeJong. Grichuk is coming off a very good year and he is not signing for $2M. Plus, they have Rodriquez close.

3 Others .... Emmanuel Rodriguez / Luke Keaschall / Walker Jenkins.

I will take the over on your predictions for all of these free agents.

So, in other words, lets just ignore what is actually happening so that we can complain.

For starters the odds of a sale going through before these guys are signed is next to zero so it's a meaningless exercise. In addition, nobody is taking Vazquez Salary and you are not taking into account the increase to Lopez and numerous arbitration eligible players. It would also cost more to replace Jeffers than keep him. If you traded Paddack for prospects you would be at $130M and you have close to $70M in free agents so you are at $200M.

Yet their farm system is ranked as high as #2. Whatever it is they have done, it seems to be working quite well!

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Dell, and many others would take exception to that generalization.

How much do you think Manea / Kukuchi, Winker, and Profar will cost? Salary decreases from the players you mentioned will be offset by Increases to Lopez, Paddack, and several arbitration increases. If you want to pretend just for fun, great but this is not remotely feasible.

No way are they going to trade away cheap pitching. Lopez, Ryan, and Ober are all free agents in 2028. Trying to transition 3 SPs in one year is difficult to pull off. I could see them trading one of them next year if Matthews and Festa get established. This becomes even more likely if the other SP prospects in the upper levels continue to improve. The Twins trading starting pitching from a position of strength would be a very welcome position indeed.

Once again you have missed the point by a country mile. Let's say the Twins hired you to come up with strategies to compete given the ability of a number of teams to spend $100M-$200M more than the twins. What do you suppose their response would be if you told them cutting that $200M delta by $20M was key to success. You are ranting over something that is marginally important in the grand scheme. BTW .... Lower revenue teams have been struggling to make the playoffs for a couple decades or more.

The Yankees and Dodgers have a $300M revenue advantage over the average revenue team and far more over the bottom revenue teams. I don't understand the fixation on that gap widening by $20-25M. I didn't hear/see many fans complaining last year when the players pushed for a much higher luxury tax threshold. The league has enormous revenue inequity, and this is not a new thing.