Major League Ready

If going through the trouble to determine if history actually supports a theory instead of just assuming my position is correct constitutes bragging, perhaps you should do some research of your own. I simply present hard fact. I am sorry the facts strongly suggest the problem is that you don't understand how winning teams are built. I based this data on your criteria of building a 100 win team and rolled in back to 97 wins given 100 wins has only been achieved 4 times since the turn of the century by teams in the bottom half of revenue. To be fair, you have stated it's about winning championships. The only team that has one a championship in the past 15 years in Kansas City. The have never had even a 97 win season and have the worst record in all of MLB over the past couple of decades. Is that who you want to emulate. You have to go back more than 20 years to find another WS winner. That would include the Marlins, and Dbacks. Do you want to emulate them? Finally, am I supposed to think it's critical we use Polanco as we did last year when he produced 1.4 WAR. Does that really move the bar. Could Topa's production be equal or close. Should we give up a top 100 prospect to pick-up 1 WAR. Should I just ignore the fact that Lee is very close to ready further negating the need for Polanco?

Avoid the facts much? I just got tired of you insisting he starts over players he would not. More importantly this particular question is insignificant in the larger picture and they entire basis for this conversation. You said yourself a couple times in the last week that this is about building a dominant team. Keeping Polanco does not even come close to moving that bar. You are constantly harping constantly about the foolishness of the organization when you simply don't understand how your own goals have been accomplished in the past. These facts are very clear and instead of acknowledging those facts you complain that I want to talk about the how to achieve the ultimate goal instead of focusing on this one tangent. What do you have to say about the fact that every team but one that has achieved your stated goal got there primarily on the basis of making this type of trade for prospects? Big Picture! Do you want to know how this has been achieved or just ignore hard facts that clearly contradict what you believe to be key? I was not changing the goal posts. I just got tired of arguing that Polanco is a starter in a non-DH role. Every single reporter said as much but apparently you know better than all of them. The FO did not think so but you know better than them. He does not replace Julien against RHP and Farmer is a better option against LHP. He certainly does not replace a healthy Lewis and he is not a `1B. Kirilloff is at least as good an option against RHP and Santana is the better option against LHP. Go ahead and disagree must the stats don't agree. Santana's defensive superiority also makes up for all or at least most of Polanco's increased offense. You don't pass on a good RP and a good prospect for this miniscule potential improvement. BTW ... Polanco is hitting .154 with a wRC+ of 15 at this moment. No doubt that will come up but he is not a sure thing.

We can argue this until the cows come home. You think Polanco is critical. Not one single reporter who covered this agrees. Obviously, the twins also don't agree. You keep harping on you want to build a 100 win / dominant team but have you ever examined how those teams are constructed? You are assuming facts but you have not offered any evidence supporting the strategies you insist are key. By this I mean examples of successful teams. Let's start with the fact that 100 wins is very rare in any team in the lower half of revenue. The 2nd chart below shows the number of 97 win seasons for all teams since the turn of the century. Nine teams have zero 97 win seasons. 16 teams have one or less. You are asking the team to disregard sustaining a good product in order to chase a pipedream. Have you ever looked at how teams in the lower half of revenue built those rosters? The only two teams in the bottom half of revenue with more than one 97 win season since 2000 are the Rays and As. They achieved this by doing exactly the opposite of what you insist is the best strategy. Listed below is the percentage of WAR produced by players acquired as prospects and free agents by the As and Rays and I though in the 102 win 2017 Guardians. In other words, they traded away someone like Polanco for an unestablished player defined as a player that have never produced 1.5 WAR in a season. With the exception of the 2008 Rays, the biggest contributors to these teams by a wide margin were players acquired as Prospects. The 2008 Rays were a bit different. They got 45% of their WAR from drafted players. They had Longoria, Uptown, and Shields. They also got productivity from 3 free inexpensive free agents which totaled $9.6M. History would suggest you are advocating for strategies far less likely to produce a 97+ win team. You are advocating they appease fans that want to pursue tactics that are the exact opposite of what has been successful in the past. Should we ignore the facts as it pertains to literally every team in the bottom half of revenue for every season since the turn of the century because you say there is a better way? The 2024 Minnesota twins are not going from a projected 85 to 97 or 100 wins because they keep Polanco or spend another $25M in free agency. However, they can give themselves a better shot at gaining that level of success by trading players like Polanco. Free TEAM WINS AAP Agent 2023 Rays 99 56% 10% Zach Eflin 2019 As 97 56% 9% 2021 Rays 100 46% 16% Zunino / McHugh 2017 Guardians 102 44% 4% 2008 Rays 97 33% 16% 3 Free Agents total of $9.6M 2002 As 102 43% 0% 1 Yankees 9 2 Braves 5 3 Cardinals 5 4 Dodgers 5 5 Angels 4 6 Astros 4 7 Oakland 4 8 Cubs 3 9 Giants 3 10 Red Sox 3 11 Rays 3 12 Mets 2 13 Phillies 2 14 Cleveland 1 15 Pirates 1 16 Reds 1 17 Dbacks 1 18 Orioles 1 19 TWINS 1 20 Mariners 1 21 White Sox 1 22 Royals 0 23 Marlins 0 24 Brewers 0 25 Padres 0 26 Rockies 0 27 Tigers 0 28 Blue Jays 0 29 Nationals 0 30 Rangers 0

This is your opinion of who he starts over. If the twins agreed with you, Polanco would still be here. They don't want a full-time DH and neither do most teams. And, if they wanted a full-time DH, Martinez would have made much more sense. They would have a better hitter, a good RP, and two good prospects. In addition, he is an inferior choice over Kirilloff against RHP and Inferior to Santana against LHP. The only time he would not be an inferior choice is at DH.

They won 101 games in 2019 so no it was not their best season in 2 decades. They happened to win a playoff series which is a far cry from saying it was their best team. Great teams get beat in the early playoff rounds all the time. Ask the 2023 Dodgers and Braves. Then, you are going to use a projection in the first week of the season to say this team is worse than last year. Were they projected to win 87 games last year? I really don't remember but I thought the projections were 82-84. BETMGM had them at 82.5 wins.

You have been raving about the Twins cutting payroll after their best season in two decades and then you belittle their 87 win season. Which is it?

This is a great point. The potential of those prospects is not gone. Gallo got phased out last year. Schoop got phased out in 2019. We would all have liked it to be a little sooner with Gallo, but this approach supplies to upside and the floor. Plus, you don't have Solano or MAT last year without this approach. I support the investment in prospects more than most but balancing that approach makes sense. Anything can happen IF you get to the playoffs as demonstrated by AZ last year. Getting there often has it's merit.

Hard to say if Polanco or Julien would be better than Kirilloff defensively at 1B. I doubt it would make enough of a difference to matter. Kirilloff was slightly better offensively last year and is off to a much better start than Polanco. It makes no sense to have Polano start over Kirilloff at 1B when Kirilloff is cheaper, still has upside, and you get a return on trading Polanco and he is $10M cheaper.

No. Polanco has nothing to do with this part of the equation. You and others have said you would prefer one expensive free agent to signing multiple less expensive free agents which assumes this is a more effective way of building a winner. History does not support that assumption. So, sorry, I did not mean to single you. I have invited everyone and anyone to give actual examples of success (defined as 90 wins) where these strategies people insist have been employed. Everyone just ignores the idea of actually citing an example. The 2022 Padres were an extreme anomaly where a dying man spent far more than any other team with this level of revenue has historically and they rectified that situation in a hurry. I can't come up with a single example. I asked you if the fact this strategy has never worked causes you to question the assumption because you have proven to be very reasonable where others simply refuse to consider their assumption might be flawed.

Since Correa is getting paid $36M, a $24M player would make it 60 between them. Where are you getting an impact player for less? Certainly not a pitcher which is their greatest need. If you were to say Hoskins I would say I was on that train. This still ignores citing the core point which was examples of teams in the bottom half of revenue winning 90 games with two expensive free agents on their roster. I would have to look through all of my data but I can't think of a team with even one premium free agent. I will drop it down to $50M. Can you give me an example of a low revenue team that spent $50M on two free agents that contributed to winning 90 games? Would you concede this assumption needs to be examined if you can't come up with a few examples?

Nobody said he wouldn't get used. The twins use all their bench play frequently. I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of. If he is not a starter, he is a bench player and he certainly is not starting over Julien or Lewis. Of course, Lewis will be out for a while hurt but this conversation started before he was hurt. He is not even starting over Kirilloff at 1B. So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts. BTW ... If they wanted a FT DH Martinez was a much better solution.

You are assuming that one expensive player would be more important to building a winner but have you looked back at successful mid/small market teams to substantiate this opinion? You know I have compiled the history and facts don't support this assumption. The opposite is generally the case where free agents contributed significantly to a below average revenue team winning 90 games or more. The Twins already have one 30M+ free agent. Can you give an example of a successful team with equal or less revenue than the Twins that had two players earning a total near $60M?

This does not change the fact that you presented this in a completely overblown way when you included Gallo, Salano, and Larnach. MAT is a stretch as well given he had a career year and was still below league average offensively. BTW, Lewis only played less than 40% of last season so at this point they lost nothing compared to last year.

I said all along that I had no problem if they wanted to roll Miranda, Martin, etc. How does this change the fact that under normal market conditions, they would have to sign the player hoping to find a good return for Polanco and Kepler. While Kepler is no sure thing, did we learn nothing from writing him off last year. He is not a replacement level player. As fans we can propose any scenario without regard to the viability or risk associated with these moves. We would have roasted the FO had they done this and then had to dump Polanco and Kepler if a good return was not available.

I just don't find this reasonable logic. Lewis is not lost for the year. He is out for a month. Solano is far from a HR hitter and Larnach was a modestly productive player. Whoever takes his ABs is likely to be more productive. That's why he is in AAA and he is not lost. He can be brought up if his performance dictates. MAT was a below average offensive player and does anyone want Gallo back. This is just silly to paint these players as major losses.

MAT / Gallo, and Polanco had 56 HRs. Who accounted for the other 28? We also lost 360 SOs between those three. Are you complaining about losing Gallo?

I have no problem with the concept you suggest. However, there is the problem in executing that strategy. The vast majority of the time the market revolves around those high-end free being signed first. Then, the trade market heats up. Executing this strategy would require signing the free agent and then hoping you can trade both Kepler and Polanco. That’s not exactly good management practice. There is also the assumption that this free agent acquisition will be more productive than Kepler / Topa / Margot / and Santana combined. That is not only unlikely. It’s very risky given how often pitchers are injured. IMO, the best approach is to add the players they did and see if they have an actual contender. If so, they can acquire a SP at the deadline while also having Kepler / Topa / Margot, and Santana.

I heard/read 8-10 assessments of the trades from various reporters and former GMs. Not one of them indicated this jeopardized the present and the generally consensus was the either this was a very good trade for the twins. There were also at least 4 or 5 articles on the most likely player to be traded by each team. All of those articles listed Polanco because of the Twins INF depth. Are every single one of these people incompetent? Show us a link where someone who gets paid to render an opinion that agrees with you. I expect another uninformed quip that sounds smart instead of backing up your statement. Trading for prospects is by far the most effective way to build a winner. A couple years ago after seeing many similar statements to yours, I was curious as to which acquisition methods have been the most effective. So instead of assuming I knew without the facts, I gathered that information from roughly 20 different 90 win teams that were in the bottom half of revenue. I have posted those results here. Of course, they were largely ignored just as the industry assessments of this trade were ignored. The facts are that most of those 90 win teams produced twice as much war from players that were acquired before every having a 1.5 WAR season than they did from free agency and trading for players that had produced a 1.5 WAR season. The facts would strongly suggest your angst is a product of not knowing that history.

This is true only if the twins were willing to devote a roster to a player who is primarily a DH. Most teams don't want to devote a spot to a DH and if the twins were to do so Martinez made more sense. Who does he replace in the field? Julien is the superior and cheaper player at 2B against RHP. Farmer is the superior player a 2B against LHP. Lewis the much better player at 3B. Kirilloff is the equivalent player at 1B against RHP and much cheaper. Santana is the superior player at 1B against LHP. So, when is he the preferred starter? There is also the issue of having room on the roster for Brooks Lee.

If you think trading away proven pitchers and our best young player is the same as trading away a player who most certainly would have been a bench player, I don't know what to tell you. Did you even hear/see a single baseball reporter that thought moving Polanco was a bad idea?

Your disagreement with the FO stems from your complete disregard for the future. The primary responsibility of any leader responsible for the success of an organization is sustained success. The fact that you don't care about the future is the central problem.

That's some creative math. The $10.5M they paid Polanco is absolutely irrelevant given they traded him. Somehow you missed the part in your calculation where they traded him and his salary went away. Topa is worth at least the $1.25M. One could argue he is worth more but let's assume it's a wash. Therefore, they spent $4M for a SP with a 50/50 chance of playing and they got two prospects for free. Had they drafted those prospects, they probably would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4M in signing bonuses so one could reasonably say taking on the risk associated with DeSclafani cost them nothing.

You make this sound like a travesty but you fail to mention that the starter was a LHP and Polanco's career wRC+ against LHP is 96 and Margot's is 109. No doubt Polanco would be the far superior choice if a RHP was on the mound but that was not the case.

Had they known Montgomery or Snell could be signed on the deal he got, they might have gone that route but you can't blame them for not anticipating what happened. Same holds true for Martinez. He was looking for much more. They could have done nothing and hoped but we would have crucified them had things played out as expected. You also can't just look at this year for Gray. His salary is $35M in 2026 right when all of our young talent should be entering their prime. They have a lot of pitching prospects and if none of them pan out we have bigger issues than not signing Gray. Champman makes less than zero sense.

I agree with you on Polanco and I was of that frame of mind since the end of last season. However, I don't think it makes sense to include Vazquez in this discussion. He was needed at the time and the signing what pretty much universally supported here. So, we are really talking about a total of $19M for depth. That's not exactly big money. Those players are not just depth, they are all good as short side platoon players. I am not sure what to think about DeSclafani. It's just nearly so clear as people like to make it, We don't know how he was progressing. They mighty of thought he was a long-short or he might have been looking fully recovered. Either way, I think we had to take him in that deal and they obviously did not have better offers for Polanco. That said, I would have been OK rolling with the guys you listed and signed Lorenzen or similar. My guess is the twins might have done that had thought they could get these guys on a 1 year deal. I bet they were holding out for multi-year deals. I would not wanted them use up budget for next year and clog up the rotation with back-end guys. They can always pivot at the deadline if the many other question marks of this team or answered in as positive light.