Major League Ready

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.

The first thing I would like to know is if they smart enough to have an escape clause? For example, they could have included a clause that rescinded Bally’s exclusivity in the event this type of loss of coverage went on for more than X days. How many NBA / NHL / WNBA teams will this effect if not rectified? If all of the leagues are in peril, it’s quite possible there could be collaboration between the leagues. That solution would likely be far better for fans but that sort of thing does not come together in a short period of time. Is this what MLB wants? I would guess they want to get out from underneath all of these contracts that have exclusivity rights. It’s going to be a hit for the league/teams when that happens but it seems inevitable. Does MLB / NBA / NHL / WNBA hoping to buy the pieces at auction and start their own network? We will never the whole story but this cluster has many layers that need to be understood before we know what was and was not possible.

Since the start of the win streak, Julien has a wRC+ of 168, Kirilloff 37. Julien has had a couple bad games where Kirilloff has looked lost the last couple weeks. What's weird is he looked pretty locked in before the streak. Sure would like to have good Alex back. BTW .... The streak started the day Max Kepler came back from injury. Since then, he has a 243 wRC+. In other news, we are on pace to win 95 games.

We finally came to the point. You and I have come to different conclusions as to why teams in the bottom half of revenue win WS very infrequently. You have concluded that the teams in the bottom half of revenue just don’t do manage all of the aspects you mentioned adequately. I think big markets are going to have people equally adapt at creating and managing the strategies you outlined. Obviously, some will be better than others but some of the big market teams are going to do these things just as well as the best small/mid market team. I think the difference is that if the Twins can spend $6M/player on a 26-man roster. The Dodgers can spend that same $6M/Player on 20 players and sign six $30M/AAV players. That advantage shows up in the playoffs when the additional talent is Betts / Ohtani / Freeman / Yamamoto / Glasnow / and Hernandez. I don't think history is screaming they are not doing the right things. I think it's screaming that it's really hard to beat a team that sll other things being equal has the advantage of adding six superstars.

I apologize the question was not clear. I am not interested asking what you want or how you would do it. I am wondering if you think there is a team or teams in this group that are being managed in a way that promotes winning a WS. That's a related by quite different question. Obviously, I am wondering if you think it's the Twins or is there not a single group of FO professionals among this group that understands how to win a WS. Reading the totality of your posts in this thread, it would appear you don't believe any of these teams understand how to win a WS.

Not asking to turn the thread into anything and I am not asking you to go through all 15 teams. Simply asking you to pick a team or two utilizing strategies you feel are likely to produce a WS Champion. Real simple. Which team(s) or is there not any team following strategies that will produce a WS winner in your opinion.

I understand you would manage the team differently but that's not at all what I asked. I asked what team is employing strategies that would be more likely to lead to a WS. You have stated repeatedly that's all you care about so it seems appropriate to ask what team is following strategies that promote this goal unless you don't believe any team in the bottom half of revenue understands how to build a WS winner. BTW ... spending ability is not an "owner thing". It's a revenue thing. It would be so great if a TD writer would put together a comparison of payroll as a percentage of revenue. Then, we would know just exactly how the Pohlad's rank in terms willingness to spend. Again, the question is which team(s) are following strategies more likely to produce a WS winner. Is there a team we should follow or is there not a single team in the bottom half of revenue that understands how to build a WS winner?

Which of the teams in the bottom half of revenue do you believe are following strategies more likely to produce a WS winner? Based on previous posts I am assuming you believe spending and therefore spending capacity influences winning. They obviously can't follow the Dodger's strategy, so, which team with the same spending capacity would you prefer they follow? Should they follow the strategies of the teams that have had a better win record since 2017? Win % 1 Tampa 0.573 2 Brewers 0.555 3 Cleveland 0.551 4 TWINS 0.521 5 Mariners 0.514 6 Oakland 0.485 7 Dbacks 0.480 8 Padres 0.479 9 Rockies 0.461 10 White Sox 0.457 11 Reds 0.453 12 Marlins 0.435 13 Pirates 0.431 14 Orioles 0.424 15 Tigers 0.407 16 Royals 0.405

If that's what you got from my post, IDK what to say.

The winning a world series metric has become an idealistic measure over the past 20 years. There have been two teams in the bottom half of revenue to win the WS over that period of time and none since Falvey took over. KC got there by being terrible for a very long time. If we use 92+ win seasons. There has only been (41) 92+ win seasons among the bottom 16 revenue in the past 20 years. 26 of them were produced by Cleveland (7), Tampa Bay (6), Oakland (5), Twins (4) and Brewers (4). The other 11 teams managed a grand total of (15) 92+ win seasons. That's 15 seasons out of a possible 300. Teams in the bottom half of revenue have won 92+ games in 13% of all seasons. Maybe we should all pick a 2nd team. I just accept the reality that it's far from a level playing field.

The most successful teams among the group you referenced did not have a free agent making more than $16M/year. That was Cain for Milwaukee in 2018 in in the first year of a 5 year deal. He produced 2.5 WAR over the remaining 4 years. The last team in this group (KC) to win a world series did not have a free agent that produced more than 1.5 WAR. The teams that produced the most from free agency did so by getting the highest percentage of WAR/Dollar spent. That's most often a combination of mid-tier free agents like Cain that have a great year or inexpensive guys that produce 2-3 WAR. % of Cost WINS WAR per WAR 2019 Twins 101 30% 3.357 Cruz 13M / Gonzalez 10.5 / Castro 8.2 / Pineda 5 / Perez 3.5 2018 Brewers 96 29% 3.403 Cain / 16M / Chacin / 7.75 / Miley 2.5 2019 Rays 96 26% 1.968 Morton / 15M / Garcia 3.5 / D'Arnaud 1 2013 Pirates 94 29% 1.878 Liriano / Martin 7.5 / Grili 3.4 2012 Athletics 94 47% 1.877 Cespedes 9M / Crisp 8.5 / Balfour 4.1 / Colon 2 / Gomes 1

Again, agree they should be looking for a long-term deal. Why should they sign a long-term deal that would assure them of being at a disadvantage to the rest of the league? Wouldn't it make sense to sign a stop gap deal while they (and the league) work on a better solution? Is it possible that the league pushed hard for this approach?

Absolutely no disagreement from me that the current model is not viable long-term. The question is if the model you proposed is viable long-term. An over the air provider is not going to sign a 1 or 2 year contract. That broadcaster has to buy equipment, hire many people, and invest existing resources to take on this endeavor. Let's hope MLB and the team of industry experts they brought in to develop a new distribution model have something better in the works. That would explain why the Twins have not opted for the solution you outlined.

Much respect Cody for posting this article. What can most people say. The majority here and the most vocal have absolutely insisted that they are incompetent and anyone who can’t see that is a moron. How do we account for the most qualified people in the industry having a 180 degree difference in opinion. Is the entire industry filled with incompetent buffoons or is it possible fans are not the best judge of how a team should be run? I hope this calms down the constant cries of incompetence.

Since joining the team, Casto has produced 3.8 WAR, 2nd only to Edouard Julien. He is not going anywhere unless he is very mediocre the rest of the season. 1 Edouard Julien MIN 140 525 23 76 51 5 15.4% 31.4% .211 .349 .254 .372 .465 .366 137 -1.1 21.8 -0.1 4.0 2 Willi Castro MIN 155 525 11 75 46 36 8.0% 25.3% .161 .343 .262 .341 .423 .334 115 5.2 14.3 6.0 3.8 3 Ryan Jeffers MIN 124 446 19 62 64 4 9.2% 25.3% .224 .349 .282 .373 .505 .379 146 -2.1 21.9 -0.7 3.7 4 Max Kepler MIN 145 549 25 77 76 2 9.3% 20.9% .211 .288 .260 .332 .470 .344 121 -2.6 11.5 1.4 3.2 5 Royce Lewis MIN 59 241 16 37 53 6 8.3% 22.8% .251 .358 .315 .378 .566 .402 161 -0.5 17.0 0.2 2.5 6 Carlos Correa MIN 150 642 19 68 70 0 10.7% 22.6% .163 .279 .233 .319 .396 .312 99 -3.1 -3.8 4.7 2.3 7 Michael A. Taylor MIN 129 388 21 48 51 13 6.7% 33.5% .223 .278 .220 .278 .442 .308 96 3.0 0.9 6.1 2.0 8 Matt Wallner MIN 89 287 15 43 45 2 10.8% 33.8% .248 .315 .231 .359 .479 .363 134 0.3 12.2 -6.4 1.6 9 Kyle Farmer MIN 146 438 11 56 51 4 7.1% 22.8% .139 .290 .238 .308 .377 .301 92 -0.7 -4.8 4.6 1.4 10 Jorge Polanco MIN 80 343 14 38 48 4 10.5% 25.7% .199 .310 .255 .335 .454 .340 118 -0.1 7.3 -4.7 1.4 11 Byron Buxton MIN 113 447 18 61 53 10 8.5% 31.5% .210 .281 .217 .295 .427 .310 98 4.1 3.2 -5.8 1.3 12 Donovan Solano MIN 134 450 5 43 38 0 8.9% 22.2% .109 .366 .282 .369 .391 .338 116 -2.9 6.0 -9.0 1.2 13 Christian Vázquez MIN 121 421 7 39 37 3 6.4% 23.8% .088 .279 .222 .273 .309 .258 62 -3.8 -22.8 19.9 1.1 14 Alex Kirilloff MIN 116 419 13 49 51 1 8.6% 24.3% .181 .327 .265 .339 .446 .340 119 -1.8 7.6 -13.0 0.9 15 Joey Gallo MIN 111 332 21 39 40 1 14.5% 42.8% .262 .244 .177 .301 .440 .320 104 0.3 1.8 -4.8 0.8 16 Trevor Larnach MIN 70 256 10 35 48 1 12.5% 31.6% .204 .323 .240 .332 .443 .335 115 -0.1 4.2 -6.1 0.7 17 Jordan Luplow MIN 32 73 2 10 4 2 12.3% 26.0% .143 .262 .206 .315 .349 .298 89 1.0 0.0 -0.6 0.2 18 Andrew Stevenson MIN 25 40 0 4 1 4 5.0% 20.0% .027 .241 .189 .250 .216 .216 32 0.3 -2.9 1.6 0.0 19 Kyle Garlick MIN 14 30 2 2 4 0 6.7% 36.7% .250 .200 .179 .233 .429 .280 77 -0.1 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 20 Austin Martin MIN 23 69 1 17 6 2 8.7% 18.8% .143 .265 .222 .290 .365 .294 91 0.2 -0.5 -2.3 -0.1 21 Carlos Santana MIN 28 115 4 9 13 0 7.8% 17.4% .146 .190 .184 .270 .330 .270 75 -0.1 -3.4 -1.1 -0.1 22 Manuel Margot MIN 26 63 1 7 3 1 11.1% 23.8% .073 .225 .182 .270 .255 .245 58 0.4 -2.6 -1.8 -0.3 23 Jose Miranda MIN 59 212 5 17 21 1 5.2% 16.0% .121 .263 .236 .283 .357 .283 80 0.1 -5.2 -4.9 -0.3 24 Nick Gordon MIN 34 93 2 13 7 0 1.1% 11.8% .143 .179 .176 .185 .319 .213 30 0.5 -7.3 -0.5 -0.5