Major League Ready

Really hoping for this pitching to continue. We could have great SP depth next year with Varland / Festa / Matthews and Culpepper although I think chances are pretty good Varland ends up in the BP. That would be just fine, especially if these other guys continue to thrive.

You keep saying they made the team weaker without offering any support of that statement. Who are they playing in Polanco's place that has been less productive? How does losing a player that has produced negative WAR hurt the team? When you say "unquestionably" you should easily be able to account for how the team is weaker.

For making $19M last year?

I thought I read somewhere that teams make a couple million per game after paying the player bonuses so that's roughly what they made. My memory could be faulty so take that for what it's worth. (not much) The BAM money while widely ignored was the biggest boost to revenue/profit last year.

How are they weaker? Polanco has performed at replacement level. If DeSclafani was playing but performing at replacement level or had they signed a free agent preforming this way there would be significant criticism. If they don't get a decent player out of Gonzalez or Bowen, it's a bad trade but we are not weaker having traded a player forming at replacement level. Obviously, Polanco could turn it around but he is hurt now too. Let's not forget he was somewhat of an injury risk as well.

You make a good point. We got Ryan for a couple months of Cruz. These trades can be overwhelmingly in favor of the team trading for prospects.

I was in the minority that hated the Mahle trade so I am with you there. Texas also gave up Emmanuel Clase for Cory Kluber who did nothing for them. Chapman was not exactly a difference maker for them either. MLB has many examples of such trades. The cost of trading for established pitching can be extremely high despite the position of many fans that they are "just prospects". They could have spent big and got very little with Snell or Montgomery who were the two prime candidates. Who knows they could both turn it around and be great. We won't know the answer to the question posed in this thread until the end of the year. Now, if we say what if they had a crystal ball and signed Lugo or Flaherty. I was a proponent of using whatever funds we had for a Lugo or Flaherty type and go with the depth we already had to replace Polanco. The $5M for Santana is probably going to be a good fallback position of Kirilloff does not drastically improve. Others here suggested similar paths but that's not what was being called for here during the off-season. That call was for proven "playoff-caliber" starters. The two most popular choices do not look so good at this point in time.

You are right. They are hard to come by, but it worked out pretty well for the Rangers last year. What if they would have signed Snell? Of course, he may come around but so far not so good. Montgomery has been mediocre too.

Polanco was replaced by players that are performing significantly better than him. Had they not spent the money, they would have a better team. Therefore, the decision to reallocate his salary did not hurt them. The decision on where to spend to spend that $10.5M might turn out poorly but trading Polanco in itself was a net gain to team productivity as of this moment. There is a lot of season to play.

Below is Fangrpah's WAR since the streak began. Complaints about Kirilloff or Margot / Martin or even Vazquez are warranted but Castro is about the last guy we should be complaining about. # Name Team G PA HR R RBI SB BB% K% ISO BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA xwOBA wRC+ BsR Off Def WAR 1 Ryan Jeffers MIN 20 82 7 13 19 1 7.3% 20.7% .414 .313 .314 .390 .729 .466 209 0.2 10.4 0.1 1.4 2 Max Kepler MIN 21 76 3 13 17 1 9.2% 13.2% .265 .429 .397 .447 .662 .474 215 0.2 10.1 0.3 1.4 3 Willi Castro MIN 22 90 2 13 11 5 3.3% 16.7% .233 .391 .337 .367 .570 .404 167 0.3 7.2 1.6 1.2 4 Edouard Julien MIN 22 77 3 12 10 4 15.6% 32.5% .203 .417 .281 .403 .484 .393 159 0.2 5.4 1.2 1.0 5 Carlos Santana MIN 22 87 7 12 19 0 5.7% 17.2% .313 .241 .263 .322 .575 .383 152 0.1 5.3 -0.9 0.8 6 Byron Buxton MIN 8 27 1 7 2 1 7.4% 25.9% .217 .467 .348 .444 .565 .443 193 -0.4 2.5 0.8 0.4 7 Trevor Larnach MIN 15 58 2 11 9 0 8.6% 22.4% .151 .395 .321 .379 .472 .377 148 -0.3 2.8 -1.3 0.4 8 Carlos Correa MIN 14 59 1 10 6 0 10.2% 15.3% .135 .279 .250 .322 .385 .314 105 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.3 9 Jose Miranda MIN 17 63 1 11 6 0 3.2% 14.3% .150 .320 .283 .317 .433 .330 116 0.0 1.1 -0.3 0.3 10 Kyle Farmer MIN 18 35 0 4 4 0 8.6% 22.9% .125 .292 .219 .286 .344 .282 83 -0.3 -0.9 0.9 0.1 11 Christian Vázquez MIN 13 46 0 2 3 2 2.2% 32.6% .000 .300 .205 .217 .205 .190 19 0.2 -4.0 2.7 0.0 12 Austin Martin MIN 14 39 0 9 2 3 10.3% 25.6% .086 .240 .171 .256 .257 .238 53 0.5 -1.6 -2.0 -0.3 13 Manuel Margot MIN 18 41 0 4 7 2 2.4% 17.1% .051 .212 .179 .195 .231 .188 18 0.5 -3.3 -1.2 -0.3 14 Alex Kirilloff MIN 18 55 1 8 7 0 7.3% 25.5% .080 .139 .120 .182 .200 .177 11 0.1 -5.5 -1.6 -0.6

Larnach had Turf Toe and that's why he was DHing.

Wouldn't the best measure of if we would have been better off keeping Polanco be to compare his production to the players who will take Polanco's ABs over the course of the year. Lewis / Miranda / Farmer / Castro at 3B and Julien / Farmer at 2B. I guess Topa's performance is also a direct reflection. Wouldn't that be the most direct measure on this year's team. Obviously, we don't know if there is a future impact yet from Gonzalez or Bowen. The team is better off if those players produce better than Polanco. Spending the money represented another opportunity to improve the team but the baseline IMO is Polanco VS the players who replace him. I would judge the trade by : 1) How well the players that take Polanco's AB compare to Polanco's production this year; 2) What they get from Topa; 3) Do Gonzalez or Bowen become ML players which of course is still years away.

You are right. he has been a little below average against RHP this year. You are also right in that it's a SSS. He has been above average against RHP since joining the Twins and has been above average overall with a 113 wRC+ with the Twins. I think we would all agree his performance and career numbers were not great before joining the Twins. I am more inclined to be concerned with what he has done with the Twins. Shouldn't we also consider that offense in the context of a guy that can fill-in quite well as SS and CF and run the bases very well? Since last year he has 3.9 WAR which is 3rd on the team. Only Kepler who most people wanted to get rid of, and Julien who gets his share of hate have posted more WAR since the beginning of last season.

Where did I say anything about the fact the twins did these things? I said that I agreed with the poster who suggested these practices were not sustainable so why are you are posing these questions to me. I said Falvey / Cleveland did not rely on these practices in general which is supported by the historical information I posted. Indirectly, I am saying Falvey has not done the same things here that Cleveland did when he was there or what Cleveland has done for the past 20 years. BTW ... I was one of the few people here against the trade for Mahle.

How good have Jeffers, Kepler, and Castro been since the streak started? Jeffers is #1 in all of MLB with 40+ PAs. Kepler, Castro, and Witt are tied for 2nd. This has been a treat to watch. # Name Team G PA HR R RBI SB BB% K% ISO BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA xwOBA wRC+ BsR Off Def WAR 1 Ryan Jeffers MIN 16 65 5 11 17 1 7.7% 15.4% .426 .366 .370 .446 .796 .513 238 0.2 10.6 0.3 1.4 2 Max Kepler MIN 16 61 3 11 14 1 11.5% 9.8% .321 .444 .434 .492 .755 .526 247 0.2 10.6 0.4 1.3 3 Bobby Witt Jr. KCR 17 73 1 16 12 9 13.7% 13.7% .180 .392 .344 .438 .525 .412 165 1.9 7.4 2.8 1.3 4 Willi Castro MIN 17 70 2 12 11 4 1.4% 17.1% .279 .426 .368 .386 .647 .443 191 0.3 7.7 2.1 1.3 5 Aaron Judge NYY 17 75 6 12 14 1 14.7% 22.7% .371 .333 .306 .419 .677 .463 205 -0.1 9.0 -0.3 1.2

Have to agree that free agency and trading for established pitching is not sustainable. That's definitely not what he or Cleveland has done. The Guardians have produced (7) 92+ win teams in the past 20 years. I don’t have their Pitching and Hitting separated. However, in total players acquired as prospects produced more WAR for them than drafted players in all 7 seasons. The 2007 club was the lowest at 32.9% of WAR coming from players acquired as prospects. The other 6 years ranged from 43.9 to 76.3% . They definitely built their teams through trades, but those trades were not for established players. Many times they were players in AAA and ready or even already in the big leagues but not yet established. 7 Cleveland Guardians WINS Drafted Intl TaP Trade FA Cleveland 2017 102 22.9% 20.0% 43.9% 8.0% 5.0% Cleveland 2007 96 31.3% 36.5% 32.2% 0.0% 0.0% Cleveland 2016 94 6.4% 17.3% 76.3% 0.0% 0.0% Cleveland 2019 93 23.0% 18.0% 44.7% 14.0% 0.0% Cleveland 2005 93 7.5% 21.8% 51.4% 2.5% 16.8% Cleveland 2022 92 26.8% 24.0% 49.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cleveland 2013 92 14.9% 0.0% 50.1% 10.2% 24.8% Guardians Total 94.57 19.0% 19.7% 49.6% 5.0% 6.7%

Are you still mad they did not sign Maeda?

I understand an agree that the Twins should not get credit for developing Joe Ryan although someone earlier in the thread pointed out that he was not exactly a top prospect so perhaps they get some credit for him succeeding at the ML level. I think they have been mediocre in drafting and developing. However, I don't think the pipeline should be defined in terms of players that were drafted. The pipeline of talent should utilize every means available so I guess I disagree with the premise of the article and those who define the pipeline in terms of players we draft.

IDK why we should care if the "pipeline" comes from drafting or trades, especially trades for prospects. Obviously, there are teams like the Brewers that hit on starting pitching. However, most teams that have developed great pitching have done so by drafting part of their staff and also making savvy trades for unestablished players, especially mid-market teams. Some of these players are A-Ballers and who have already made the ML level but have not proven themselves yet. Is there contribution less meaningful if they were not drafted? The 23 Rays drafted 1 of their top 10 pitchers by WAR. The 17 Guardians had 9 pitchers that produced 1.5 WAR or more. Four of the top 5 in WAR (Kluber / Carrasco / Bauer / Clevinger) were acquired as prospects and the 4th most WAR was from Andrew Miller who was acquired in trade. Only 3 were drafted. We would all like to see more drafted players succeed but I won't enjoy Joe Ryan any less because he was acquired in trade. The one I really don't understand is not including RPs because they are failed SPs. Is Duran not a great asset because he did not work out as a SP? Should we not be excited to have 6 years of Griffin Jax because he is not starting. What percentage of RPs are failed starters? The pipeline producing RPs, failed SPs or not, is far more valuable than buying them in free agency or trading for established RPs. The only other alternative is waiver wire pick-ups.

Where streaming is concerned, this model won't be able to compete in terms of content with the platform ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros is rolling out collectively. However, someone has to produce the content if Bally's goes away and the relationship with the NBA/NHL appears to be over. The big contracts from RSNs is over which makes this model much more viable today than it was in 2001 for Victory Sports. There were limited distribution options back then. Today, there is a myriad of options and a model such as the Yes network can distribute through a myriad of options. It makes sense and if they're going this route, the decision has likely already been made. The question is what are their alternatives? Does MLB have something in the works? Is there another collaborative effort in the works to produce the NBA/NHL and MLB content?

Why the hostility? If you think I didn't understand your point, make your case. It's an interesting topic. You didn't understand my point which is profitability drives the valuation so to say they are making money even if they are not operationally profitable flies in the face of every financial principle applicable here. These teams sold for big money in part because of the incredible / consistent growth. That looks much more suspect than it ever has in the past.

Can't get DirecTV where you live? MLB steaming?

I had a slight "niggling" as well which is why I posted. What drives valuations / business value? Number 1 is Earnings and Revenue Growth Potential. Market Conditions and Risk next. Name Recognition and Goodwill have role and then a number of other less influential factors. The premise that profitability does not matter because the business is worth a lot ignores the most important factor driving valuations. The business has value because of the likelihood of profitability. We have a constant buzz here about the inevitable demise of MLB so will these valuations be viable going forward. The average return on capital (stock market) in the US is 10%. Anyone buying the team at the current $1.2B valuation could make $120M in the stock market.

The potential sale price does not matter if you don't want to sell the business. If you are keeping the business the only value is profit/loss. Let's say they have decided to sell the business in the next 5 years or if they are interested in growing the business value to sell it someday. What are the primary factors that influence business valuation?

Here is an article about NBA coverage of playoff games. This appears to be speculation but Bally's might get cut out of NBA playoff games. There are 15 NBA teams that are broadcast locally by Bally's. All of their contracts are up at the end of this season. Bally's shelf life is looking shorter and shorter. Playoff Games Now I am really curious about what might be brewing for the future broadcasting of all these sports. All of the leagues collaborating would be incredible but that would be a gigantic undertaking to execute.