Major League Ready

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.

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.