Major League Ready

Rather than theorizing what will work, let’s look at was has contributed to successful roster construction. The example below is the 2021 Tampa team that won 100 games. What stands out and this is true of most of the rays teams is that over 50% of WAR came from players that were acquired as prospects. Some of these players did come via trades for popular players. One of those trades was Archer for Glasnow, Meadows, and Shane Baz who looked like a great prospect until he need TJ. He is scheduled back this year. Yes, they traded away a popular player but that was a true fleecing. The other was Willy Adames who of course was replaced by Wander franco. They had 3 Free agents contribute 7.8 WAR for less than $10M. They are not the kind of free agents that are popular here but they find guys that produce. None of the players acquired in trade were proven when acquired and they did not have an international signee produce 1.5 WAR or more. The list below does not include every player. It’s meant to identify the source of their better players. This is defined as Position players and SPs that produced 1.5 WAR or greater and RPs that produced 1.2 WAR or greater. Players are considered as being traded for as prospects if they had never previously produced the above WAR levels. I all of the As, Rays, and Guardians teams that have won 90 games if anyone wants to see other examples. 2021 Rays (100 Wins) Source WAR Brandon Lowe Drafted 4.9 Mike Zunino FA 4.5 2Yrs/$9M Randy Arozarena TaP 3.8 Joey Wendle TaP 2.9 Traded Kameron Misner (minors) Kevin Kiermaier Drafted 2.5 Manuel Margot TaP 2.5 Traded Emilio Pagan Wander Franco Intl 2.4 Brett Phillips TaP 2.3 Traded Lucius Fox Yandy Diaz TaP 1.9 Traded Jake Bauers (Career WAR -1) Austin Meadows TaP 1.6 Part of the Archer trade Tyler Glasnow TaP 2.6 Traded Chris Archer Shane McClanahan Drafted 2.5 Collin McHugh FA 1.8 1Yr/$1.8M Andrew Kittredge TaP 1.5 2yrs / 3.925 Drew Rasmussen TaP 1.4 Traded Willy Adames Ryan Yarbrough TaP 1.3 Traded Drew Smyly # acquired by: Drafted 9.9 25.3% International Draft 2.4 6.1% Trade for Prospect 20.5 52.4% Trade for Proven 0 0.0% Free Agent 6.3 16.1%

If by details you mean facts, then yes I continue to pick at the details. The fact is that Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay rank 6-8 in MLB for 90 win seasons since the turn of the century. That's pretty darn good and better than a lot of teams with considerably more revenue. It's also a fact that these teams are not winning the WS. Your narrative is that none of them follow best practices and need to find alternative (trail blazing) strategies. The only actual example of a strategy you have offered is that they should avoid mid-level free agents and only sign top free agents. Do you really think you have figured out something none of these organizations have been able to understand? Do you really think the FOs of all of every team in the bottom half of revenue is incompetent and don't understand what you understand? My narrative is that the revenue disparity is very difficult to overcome when the measure is WS wins. Sorry, but I just can't accept your inference that all of these teams are run poorly. Nor do I believe there is a trail blazing innovation that will counteract the revenue disparity. The rest of the industry views the Rays as innovators, but you discredit them because their way contradicts your view of how to do things. BTW .... They got huge production out of Morton on a 2-year deal and the first year of Eflin produced 4.8 WAR for $11m and we got 1.1 from Correa for $33M. Now you want to change the narrative to a scenario that does not exist "If it's impossible to compete because of the payrolls," That's not changing anytime soon. This is a complete copout that has nothing to do with what we have been debating. You have insisted the answer is trail blazing innovation and more specifically that these lesser revenue teams should be able to do better. The truth is the last decade or so has produced enormous innovation in many aspects of scouting and development. The Rays have arguably been the best team in this regard but their way is not what you want so you discredit it. You want big names / big $ players and they are getting performance out of inexpensive players. Which strategy do you think best serves a team with low revenue? The big picture IMO would be that the Twins incorporate many of the practices that have resulted in the Rays, As, and Guardians outperforming the teams in the bottom half of revenue. Then, use the revenue advantage they have over the Rays and As to extend young core players.

You are asking us to accept the premise that literally none of the 15 teams in the bottom half of revenue are competent. None of them have your insight apparently. On one hand, you insist the key is to invest in elite players. How is this possible for teams with half the financial resources as the teams landing these players? This simply lacks reason. This is where fanaticism goes off the rails for me. Fans think the people running these teams must be incompetent without being reasonable about how difficult it is to compete with teams that can literally go buy 5 -7 top free agents and have the twins entire budget left over for the other 20 players.

I don't think there are any strategies / practices that will nullify the enormous revenue advantage some clubs have. The results are quite clear. We can pretend they don't exist but teams in the bottom half of revenue are not having success in the playoffs and they never will. Tampa has been to the WS twice in the past 20 years. Most of the teams in bottom half have not been there at all. A handful let's say 5 players, at today's prices would cost the entirety of any team in the bottom half of revenue. Even 4 top free agents would require the twins basically fill out the rest of the roster with league minimum players. The Rays got 4.8 fWAR from Zach Eflin at $11M. The Twins got 1.1 fWAR from Correa for $33M. That's how you compete with half the budget.

The Nationals let Harper go the year before they won the WS and the Astros won the WS the year after Correa left for free agency and was replaced by Pena who played a pivotal role in their playoff run. Eovaldi was in his first year with the rangers and they also probably would not have won without adding Montgomery at the deadline. Josh Jung in his first full year was also big and they got a huge boost from a 21 year old rookie with a total of 23 games experience.

Let's just assume the Twins are riddled with incompetence. Let's forget about the twins. I want to know what the right practices entail. What teams are employing better practices and strategies? I have asked you and anyone else here to name any franchise with equal or less revenue. Yet, not one team has been held up as an example by a single participant here. Is it your position that not a single organization outside the top revenue teams are competently run?

What team with equal or less revenue than the twins would you like them to emulate?

I specifically said "instead of telling us the organizations that have put a good product on the field don't count because they have not won the WS often enough, tell us what franchises are the model to follow. Examples of success and how that success was achieved is informative and has value. Show us concrete examples of teams that have put a better product on the field compared to As, Ray's and Guardians and how they did it." Yet, you came back with what they had not done. IDK. I want to know what practices will yield better results and you have nothing to say about a solution. That approach has no value other than to complain. Would you prefer to have the Royals of the past 25 years? They have a WS and have been the worst team in the league by other measures such as overall wins and 90 win seasons. It comes of as complaining when you use the standard of WS wins when that measure is very often not achieved by very good teams and rarely achieved by teams with revenue at or below the level of the Twins. If you were the top tier of performance in your company most years, I doubt you would feel it fair if your employer reviewed your performance has having "done nothing" because you were not #1.

We have an enormous amount of complaining in general terms without any specific examples of success. The simple fact is that none of the below average revenue teams are winning WS with any frequency and they also have less playoff success. Therefore, the constant complaining while using WS wins is a nonsensical rant. I will ask again, which franchise of equal or less revenue is the model for success. The only one to win a WS in recent years is Kansas City. Outside of that year, they have zero 90 win seasons and the worst record in all of MLB. Is that success? Do you want to watch a miserable team year after year if a WS win is sandwiched between consistent ineptitude? So, instead of telling us the organizations that have put a good product on the field don't count because they have not won the WS often enough, tell us what franchises are the model to follow. Examples of success and how that success was achieved is informative and has value. The constant whining has no value. Show us concrete examples of teams that have put a better product on the field compared to As, Ray's and Guardians,.

That's a ridiculous metric. How many teams win over 100 games. If you use a reasonable metric like 90 games, three teams in the lower half of revenue have significantly outperformed all other teams of similar revenue since the turn of the century, Oakland and Cleveland have had (10) 90 win seasons, and Tampa (9). The next closest are Seattle and Minnesota with 7 & 6. The Brewers and White Sox have 5. All others have between 1-4. The only team in this revenue class to win the WS in the last 18 years was Kansas City who has a total of (1) 90 win season since the turn of the century and the worst overall record in the league. For just a moment, I thought this could be an article about roster building strategies that have been working for teams with equal or less revenue. Low payroll is not a strategy. It's a limitation based on revenue. A discussion on strategies to counteract the revenue disparity that is here to stay would have been a refreshing change. Who should the Twins emulate? Which franchises with similar or less revenue are the best run?

Sure we should be encouraged and if he puts together a couple 1.000 OPS months in AAA we can be even more encouraged but he has to sustain this level of performance for a while to prove he belongs on the ML club.

Bryson Stott was also still available and those two were widely considered the best available at that point in the draft. Cavaco was a horrible mistake.

Langford is an Absolute beast. I was praying for him to drop one more spot.

Sorry, I just fail to see how any of this supports your original point that bringing up players later would result in keeping payroll lower? The initial 6+ years are going to cost roughly the same. Obviously, the extension would cost more if a player has more prime years but they have exactly one player that fits this description in Buxton. I doubt his AAV would have changed had he been up a year earlier. The greatest influence by far on our payroll was a premium free agent (Correa). They were able to fit Correa into the budget because of the number of young/inexpensive players on the roster. Had those young players been held back, it likely would have made it more difficult to fit Correa into the budget because we would have had more Vazquez / MAT or even Gallo type players on the roster.

If the premise is they are never going to pay free agent prices, what difference does it make when they bring them up? They are still going to pay roughly the same amount for their 6 full years of control. What players have they extended that became free agents in their 30s? The best way to keep premium talent is to extend them early like Atlanta is done. The lower revenue teams that have been successful are the teams that have traded experienced players like Polanco when they have suitable replacements. Most of the 90+ win (lower revenue) teams have produced significantly more WAR from players that were acquired as prospects or very early in their MLB career before they became established than they have from players they drafted. Players that were acquired as prospects represent about double the WAR as that of the combined WAR of free agents and established players acquired in trade.

None of us has any idea what the options were or what long-term influences impacted the broadcast rights. You have no idea what could or could not be worked out. To assume they favor a deal with less viewership options is absurd. I am growing equally tired of people without any actual knowledge assuming they have all the answers and everyone else must be incompetent.

Castro was good against RHP last year but his wRC+ against LHP was only 82 and 91 for his career. Having Jeffers DH against LHP is the better option. Vazquez is still below average but his wRC+ is 15 points higher against LHP. Might as well try to get him behind the plate with a LHer on the mound. Buck can DH against RHP. His splits are pretty close.

Confident might be a bit strong but it does seem like he is in a much better place physically.

The Twins were in an entirely different position. They no longer had a contract. It should not be assumed they automatically got the same percentage as those teams that were still under contract.

I am looking at this a little differently. There are only 8 position players. So, from a roster construction point of view, you have 4 utility players on the roster. Obviously, someone has to DH. If you had a dedicated DH (like Cruz) there would only be room for 3 utility players on the roster. There will be quite a few days where Jeffers could end up being the DH and then you have 4 utility players available.

Without looking it up, I would assume there are a good percentage of the TV contracts with 10+ years until expiration. This could take quite a while to get all of the teams to a new model if the RSN model remains viable. I keep thinking that MLB, the NBA/NFL, and MLS should establish a cooperative effort that would welcome in participants as their TV deals expire. They would keep revenue derived from their individual broadcasts while sharing the operating costs. This would provide scale and shared resources to reduce operating costs. The time is now.

If they only carry 2 catchers, they have 4 non-catcher utility / bench players, right? Of course, this assumes there is not a dedicated DH. I was focusing on the idea that Correa, Lewis, Julien, Buxton, Kepler, and the catchers have a fixed position. They are not sliding into another spot like Kirilloff or Wallner might. It just shines a light on the importance of the guys mentioned earlier who are getting time in a number of positions. You have more than anyone here promoted the value of that flexibility. It's actually quite encouraging that the Twins have quite a few guys with good offensive potential and the ability to play a number of positions. We have seen the value of this role in Willi Castro.

That's every position except LF and I think Wallner is going to get every chance to secure that position. The 4 non-catcher bench players will have to back-up or match-up in 8 positions which of course is generally the case.. That makes flexibility a prerequisite.

Seems like you are making the assumption he is a franchise player and therefore should be up because he is 23 years old. Problem is his performance is not consistent with the assumption he is a franchise player. Wyatt Langford was drafted a year later and he has advanced just as far as Lee in half the time and his performance in AA and AAA has been far better than Lee. Langford's OPS was 330 points higher than Lee. That's what ready looks like. Even Anthony Prato's OPS was 260 points higher than Lee. Seems like a lot of people just want to ignore what Lee has actually done and proclaim him ready.

I could see the key to all of these players carving out a role, at least initially, being an ability to play multiple positions. These guys are all players to watch the 1st couple months. It would be just great if a couple of these young guys go nuts and force their way onto the team.