Major League Ready

IDK. The point was solely that you referred to Polanco as the better player than Julien which you avoided completely.

These posts were very clearly directed at if there was anytime other than DH where Polanco would be the best choice. It's a big reach to say this suggests that Santana was justification for getting rid of Polanco. Now, you do have a point if you fell they should have anticipated injuries in the first week of the season to Lewis / Correa and Lee.

That post was very clearly directed at if there was anytime other than DH where Polanco would be the best choice. It's a big reach to say this suggests that Santana was justification for getting rid of Polanco.

I was reacting to the 2nd post in this thread you said "Does that mean that Polanco would have been 1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th or 5th... which would have knocked Julien down to 2nd or 6th? So thank heavens we got rid of the better player so Julien can rise up that depth chart? Perhaps I did not understand what you meant but it sure reads as though Polanco is the better player and the reference is to Julien.

You will have to show me that post because that was not my position. I said over and over the reason for moving logic was ... A) Julien is the better player and $10M less. B) Farmer the better platoon player and versatile back-up and he can cover SS where Polanco cannot. C) Lee will likely be ready soon.

Their mistake that is making a difference was not trading Polanco. It was signing Santana. They should have signed Hoskins. His salary for 2023 is only $12M. They would only be at $132M with Hoskins. If that was a problem, they could have flipped DeSclafani immediately or just not taken him in the deal. They could have traded or non-tendered Thielbar. With Hoskins, they could send Kirilloff to the OF or use him as a DH. This would be a better team than what they have or if they had kept Polanco.

Polanco's wRC+ 2023 was 118. It's 89 this year / Julien's wRC+ 120 in 2023 was 136. It's 120 this year. So far this year, Polanco's OAA -1 / Juliens OA 2 In what way is Polanco the better player?

Defense is more important than offense from a catcher but offence does matter. He is 11th on the team in wRC+ with -11 and 11th in OPS at a paltry .310. That's bad. He rates 48th out of 53 Catchers with 17 ABs or more. The sample size is so small as to be relatively irrelevant, but he has been bad.

Insisting the analysis is cherry picking is not an explanation. It's a statement. I simply asked you to offer an explanation as to what set of data would make more sense than to use the best teams these organizations have ever fielded and look at how many players were acquired via every potential acquisition method. Show me where someone explained what set of data would be better to show how the best teams have been constructed. Now that you have been asked to explain what makes this data set "cherry picking", you want to quit. This does not require a lot of effort. Tell me what specific data set would best facilitate determining the best acquisition strategies. I used 5 years from the 3 teams with by far the most successful seasons since the turn of the century and the 3 best years from the next tier of terms of success. Every potential method was totaled for each team. So, are you going to run in hide or are you willing to support the statements you made so ardently?

I found the 101 course helpful in the 201/301/401 and the 501 course that was required in my MBA program but thanks for the advice just the same. The data includes the 5 best seasons for the teams that had the most playoff appearances, and all of the acquisition methods were covered. Also included are the 3 best seasons for the next tier of teams which of course did not have nearly as many good seasons. It would be great if you or any of the other posters you referenced would explain why this is cherry picking. I am even more curious as to if you are willing to actually explain your position. I just seems fair that if you are going to be this critical that you be willing to explain the problem with this approach with some specificity.

I would bet we can find the same type of posts about Stewart if we look back to the start of last season right along side hundreds of posts condemning Paddack. This is a no cost back-up plan to tide the team over until Duran and others make it back. As Doc pointed out, the braves thought he had value but I guess he is not good enough to provide depth until we get some guys healthy.

I guess I did ask what you have to say. However, instead of insisting the problem is my ignorance, why don't you explain to all of us a better way to isolate the impact of acquisition methods. I would think someone with your deep understanding of business analytic would be eager to illustrate the correct way to show how successful teams are built with the bonus of demonstrating my ignorance. I would also love to hear why this is cherry picked. The number of 91 win seasons was provided. Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay have far more seasons than any of the other teams in the bottom, half of revenue. It's clear they have been successful more often than other teams. I took their best seasons. I only used the best 3 seasons from the Twins, Dbacks, and Brewers because while they have been more successful than some other teams, they had far less 91+ win seasons than Oakland/TB and Cleveland. How is that cherry picking. Do we not want to be successful more often? Do we want to know how the most successful teams have built rosters? Please enlightenment us!

You could not be more wrong. Do you think I only looked at how many players were acquired before they were established. I posted the method no less than a half dozen times and probably 10. I broke down the categories of acquisition as follows. Drafted / International Draft / Acquired via trade or waiver before accumulating 1.5 WAR in a season (1.2 WAR for RPs) / acquired as proven. This is defined as a player that has produced 1.5 WAR in a season and the last category is free agents. In other words, I determined the percentage for every type of acquisition as opposed to your interpretation of "one variable", Posted below is a summary table. I used the 5 best seasons for the Ray, As, and Guardians and the 3 best seasons because they had far more 90+ win seasons and the 3 best seasons for the Twins, Brewers, and Dbacks. The win table is at the bottom. What do you have to say now? Rays (Summary) 5 Seasons Cleveland (summary) 5 Seasons Oakland (summary) 5 Seasons Average Wins 96.8 Average Wins 95.2 Average Wins 100 Drafted 4.2 14.28 37% Drafted 3.2 6.94 23% Drafted 3.2 9.42 26% Intl Draft 0.4 4.06 2% Intl Draft 3.4 11.62 26% Intl Draft 0.4 7.92 8% Trade as Prospect 6.6 11.78 39% Trade as Prospect 4.6 13.82 40% Trade as Prospect 5.8 7.72 35% Trade for Proven 1.2 3.28 9% Trade for Proven 0.4 3.7 13% Trade for Proven 1.2 6.58 17% Free gent 1.8 4.92 13% Free Agent 0.4 2.66 5% Free Agent 2.2 5.4 15% Twins (summary) 3 Dbacks (summary) 3 Brewers summary) 3 Seasons Average Wins 97 Average Wins 95 Average Wins 95.67 Drafted 6.00 18.43 42% Drafted 2.67 8.80 22% Drafted 2.67 9.13 31% Intl Draft 1.67 4.37 9% Intl Draft 1.67 4.77 12% Intl Draft 0.33 0.53 1% Trade as Prospect 2.67 9.13 22% Trade as Prospect 3.33 10.60 27% Trade as Prospect 5.00 9.97 32% Trade for Proven 1.67 4.33 10% Trade for Proven 1.67 7.00 16% Trade for Proven 2.00 5.47 16% Free gent 3.00 7.70 17% Free Agent 3.33 10.37 23% Free Agent 3.00 6.63 20% # of 91 seasons. 91 Wins 1 Yankees 16 2 Dodgers 13 3 Cardinals 10 4 Red Sox 12 5 Braves 10 6 Oakland 10 7 Cleveland 9 8 Tampa 7 9 Astros 7 10 Giants 6 11 Angels 7 12 TWINS 5 13 Mariners 4 14 Rangers 4 15 Phillies 4 16 Cubs 5 17 Brewers 4 18 Nationals 4 19 Dbacks 4 20 Mets 3 21 White Sox 3 22 Tigers 3 23 Blue Jays 3 24 Reds 2 25 Rockies 2 26 Orioles 3 27 Pirates 2 28 Padres 0 29 Marlins 1 30 Royals 1

His wRC+ is 144 Buxton's is 91. It won't stay that way but in a thread about the most problematic developments, he is at the bottom of the list.

I qualified on more than one occasion that I had all of the information for the four teams that have been the most successful. It probably took 6 hours to put together. I did this because of just assuming I understood what strategies had been the most successful, I actually bothered to look. In contrast, many folks here have taken an ardent position regarding the relatively necessity to employ the various means of acquisition without offering a single example of how a team was constructed. If you started a new business and I said "hey, would you be interested in knowing the strategies used by the 4 most successful businesses in your industry, would you no thanks, I am not interested in the information unless you also have it on the businesses that have been far less successful? Now, that's incredible.

Yes, I see your point, taking a position without a single example is much better than examining every winning season of the only 3 teams in the bottom half of revenue to have success more than once or twice in a season in the past couple decades. Should we be more interested in the teams that have been successful often or the teams that have had one or two good seasons in the past couple of decades? I did several of those too just not every last one of them. Had this data supported what you want done, an example of one team for one season would have been considered evidence. It does not matter how extensive the data when you are unwilling to consider the data from every playoff team in the past 25 years for the most successful franchises.

I don't have the data for teams that have only had a (2-3) 90 win seasons in the past 25 years. Who wants to emulate them although for all I know the acquisition percentages are very similar. I do have ALL of the data for Oakland, TB, and Cleveland. You will have to explain to me how compiling the acquisition method for every 90 win team they have had in the past 24 seasons is not applicable. Are you really going to tell me that the fact 45-55% of their WAR came from players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season does not tell us anything? It's exceptionally telling. Excuse me for collecting the information that illustrates how successful teams were built. Obviously, the facts contradict popular opinion which really rubs some people the wrong way. We would not be having this dialogue if free agent spending or trading for established players had proven to be essential to building a playoff type team.

First of all, I was reporting what other teams did to reach their goals. You were insisting a particular strategy was key to building a dominant team. I and provided a summary that showed how successful teams were built which refuted your position given all of them but one had derived more production from players acquired as prospects and in every case trading for prospects delivered 2-5X the WAR of trading for established players. However, I certainly never suggested that those teams had taken the opportunity to trade for prospects in every instance. You are twisting my position to suit you. Trading Polanco was trading from depth. The net impact is very modest at worst. Trading away Sonny Gray is a very different than trading away from a position of depth. You have completely twisted the situation with Maeda. I wrote that the trade to acquire Maeda was a RP for a starting Pitcher with 4 years of control was a goof move. I did not say they should not have traded him at the deadline last year. I was indifferent as to if they traded him and probably posted I would have traded him if the return was good.

When I said for a RP, I meant Maeda was traded for a RP (Graterol). My writing was not clear. Gray had two years of control when we traded for him. Were they going to trade him in 2023. Is trading your #1 or #2 Starter even remotely the same as trading for a position of depth? Maeda was hurt so we were not getting anything for him and again different than trading from depth. I agree with you that signing Hoskins and trading Julien for a SP would have made the 2023 Twins better. However, all of the SPs that were acquired via trade this year had one or two years of control. Was there anyone other than Cease that 2 years of control. He cost a lot more than just Julien. It's a very similar bet and cost to Mahle.

We do share the goal of building a dominant team. Of course, the best way to do this is the focal point of many discussions here. It was these debates that promoted me to make the effort to research how the various acquisition methods had actually influenced the most successful teams. Had they spent another $30M on the FA(s) of your choice, and kept Polanco, they would have been a better team. They still would have projected to win right around 90 games so it seems unlikely they would have been a dominant team which you and I have described as 97-100 win teams. I simply don’t believe pieces are there to be a dominant team even if they spent another $30M in free agency. The need more talent to get them over the hump and free agency is the most inefficient way to get there. The data or history strongly suggests to me that this type of trade has been by far the most effective roster building strategy. Classifying Polanco as a player that was acquired before producing 1.5 WAR does not distinguish International draftees from the standard first year player draft or players who were acquired via trade. The categories were defined in order to identify what strategies have been the most effective. Therefore, I set-up the following categories. 1) 1st year Player Draft 2) International Signing which Polanco falls into 3) Players acquired by trade before they reach 1.5 WAR. 4) Players acquired after becoming established defined as having produced a 1.5 WAR season 5) Free agents. • The criteria for RPs is 1.2 WAR I have not complained about some of the other trades you mentioned because I don’t believe the fact this type of trade is the most effective means we should never trade for an established player. The better job they do acquiring talent, the more talent they can afford to trade. BTW … I was very much against training for Mahle and took a lot of heat here for apposing a trade when the team was in 1st place. If you recall my position was that being in 1st place is not synonymous with being a contender. We would be a better team today had they not made a huge investment in trying to make the 2022 team a contender. Maeda had multiple years of control on a good contract for a RP. SPs are a lot harder to come by than RPs. Gray was traded for a HS pitcher. My take was that the odds are pretty good that HS pitcher does not pan out but we could live to regret that decision.

I don’t think that the Twins would describe Topa as a volatile Reliever” None of the many baseball reporters that covered the trade described him in this way. I think it depends on what they get from Topa and Brooks Lee. I think part of this decision was making room for Lee. You need to make up your mind if your goal is the best team this season or building the a dominant team. You have been adamant that you want strategies followed that have the best chance of producing a true contender which you defined as a 100 win team. Polanco might have added 1 WAR. We will see if he stays healthy and performs. Regardless, he is inconsequential in terms of reaching your stated goal. The real question should be what is the best way to achieve your goal or how have other teams in the bottom half of revenue achieved your goal because it’s highly unlikely that the 2024 Twins are going to be that team with or without Jorge Polanco. Can we look back at how other teams managed their roster in achieving this goal? Of course. So, let me ask you a question now that you know that virtually every 97 win / bottom half revenue team over the past couple decades produced 45-55% of their revenue from prospects (defined as players acquired before they produced a 1.5 WAR season). The question is how have the teams in the bottom half of revenue built the dominant / 97+ win type team, which is your stated goal? Did they trade from depth (Polanco) or trade players they could not afford while they could get value instead of keeping them through the end of their contract? If you say the only thing that matters is a WS win. Should we emulate KC? If we use your other stated goal of a dominant team with a good chance, let's see if you can actually answer the question of what we should conclude by looking at every team that has achieved the kind of dominance you say is your goal.

There is just a speck of truth in this but it's a juvenile rant that does not remotely depict what I said. I responded to your constant harping about the organization not being willing to do what it takes to build a dominant team. I offered you hard facts that quite clearly illustrate those teams were built by making this type of trade. The evidence is overwhelming, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it completely discredits what you insist must be done. Go ahead, keep thinking the problem is that the people in charge are incompetent. Their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence.

I am pretty sure getting a RP matters so are you saying Lee is not waiting in the wings? I realize this is a relative statement as to just how ready he is but the consensus here and from Falvey's lips are that he is very near ready. Perhaps a better phrasing would have been Lee is expected to be ready relatively early in the season but now we are nitpicking. I noticed you ignored the far more important part of the post which addressed these previous posters claim that prospects don't matter while the facts show trading for prospects has been the most impactful tactic in building 90 win teams for those teams with below average revenue. In other words, you ignored the core of the message in order to find a piece you could argue. Someone actually went through the trouble of gathering a great deal of information that happens to show that all of you that are on the prospects are just prospects train don't understand how teams in the bottom half of revenue have been successful and you don't like these facts being pointed out because it demonstrates the futility of your position. I would be happy to argue the facts if you actually want to present some that show directly how winning rosters have been built.

You also said that you wanted to build a 100 win type team instead of relying on a lesser team to win in the playoffs because the 100 win type of team has a much better chance in the playoffs. So, I listed all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue to achieve 97 wins because so few ever reach 100 wins. Then, you tell me it does not count because they didn't win a championship. This is not reasonable and without a doubt you know those teams do have a better chance of winning but winning it all also takes some luck. When you found out they built those teams by trading players like Polanco for prospects, you just could not acknowledge that these facts make your position exceptionally suspect. So, let's talk about how the one team in the bottom half of revenue that has won a WS. The 2015 Royals produced 32% of their WAR from players acquired as prospects. 38% was from drafted players which was a product of absolutely sucking for a very long time. 9% came from the Intl draft. 12% from acquiring proven players and 9% from Edison Volquez who is the exact opposite type of FA that you endorse. So, the one team that has won the WS does not support your contention either. The hard facts are that the practices you insist upon are the opposite of what has produced the best teams over the past couple decades. If you disagree, show an example from the last 15 years as I have.

Show me where I said there were 9 better hitters. I said he would not start at any position other than DH which he is not. The problem you think that's it's that simple. Match-ups matter. Defensive flexibility matters. Who replaces Polanco's ABs matters. The fact that Lee is waiting in the wings matters. The fact that they got a good RP matters. The real interesting thing here is that I have posted the facts. In other words, I have posted the percentage of WAR produced by platers acquired as prospects vs players acquired after producing a year with 1.5 WAR. The results are staggering. yet, you want to tell me history disagrees. It's one thing to not be informed. It's quite another to ignore the facts and insist the facts are something entirely different. Instead of making unsupported insulting comments. Show me any team in the bottom half of revenue that produced more WAR from trading for proven players than trading for prospects. I don't think you can find one that produced 1/2 as much WAR by trading for proven players. Three out of every four examples of 90 win teams produced the most war from players that were acquired as prospects or waiver claims. In other words, you are dead wrong! I will say it again. Show proof instead of talking big.