Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Major League Ready

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,641

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Major League Ready

  1. Major League Ready
    Lewis to CF would be even better.
  2. Major League Ready
    Wow! That is eye opening.
  3. Major League Ready
    MLB trade rumors had him at 2/20. I think it depends on how much salary they clear with Polanco and/or Vasquez / Farmer and Kepler. The negotiations with Bally could come into play as well. If the budget is available, the only better use of any available funds is pitching. They could redistribute Polanco's money to Bader and then push the budget to $135M or so for a SP. I could see Farmer being traded as well if they land a SP and need to clear payroll space to make the pitching addition. Their relative confidence or lack thereof among the internal candidate might ultimately determine their interest in Bader or similar players.
  4. Major League Ready
    I hear ya but there is much we don't know. Just because Bally's is making a push does not mean the twins have to go with them but why not listen to what they have to say. Maybe the negotiations include an update to their app for example. What if it means $20M more than the next best alternative? Going with Bally for a year might fit into a bigger picture plan the league is developing. Who knows? I am just saying let's see how it shakes out before we conclude the merits of whatever they are doing.
  5. Major League Ready
    Why not just sign Harrison Bader instead of trading? He is an even better defender and has the same type of L/R splits.
  6. Major League Ready
    Do you have information the rest of us don't have? How do you know Bally's is not offering the same amount as last year which would be more than the team was counting on which would probably mean spending would not go down as much as anticiapted. It would also give the Twins and MLB a year to develop a better distribution model. I don't think we have enough information to have an opinion on the relative merits of a one-year deal with Bally's so why be frustrated?
  7. Major League Ready
    1&2 are very important to the next 5 years so yes, huge! I am going to be greedy with #3 and expand the wish to us seeing multiple prospects step up. #4 is big for the entire game not just the Twins. It's time to make baseball more accessible. The bonus would be if the new distribution model helps the small and mid-market teams close the revenue gap just a little. My fear is that a new model could be even more beneficial to large market teams.
  8. Major League Ready
    I didn't know the story. Definitely unique circumstances. He is a really interesting possibility. Have there been rumors of him being shopped?
  9. Major League Ready
    This one was not on my radar. He was great his rookie season. Then, mediocre last year. I don't rule out guys because they are late bloomers but this guy was 30 before he made the show. I think I would rather give Severino a shot.
  10. Major League Ready
    Is there a rule that rookies who play well can't get better in their 2nd year? I know it's quite possible the league adjusts but it's also possible they get even better. Maybe Wallner does adapt a better 2 strike approach. Lewis just maintaining would be a boost if he plays a full season.
  11. Major League Ready
    I understand your point to be that basically the addition of Gray did nothing for us in year 1 and the team was good not great in the 2nd year so the overall impact is modest. However, when a player performs well there are a lot of fans who don't care much about the cost. Fans love immediate gratification. The tone here sways heavily toward the immediate like it did last year when most insisted we push in our chips because the teams was in 1st play. Never mind it was not a very good team that had numerous injuries. If this "investment" was measured as we would any other investment, we would measure the overall return. Gray's return was good for 1 year. If another investment was good over the course of 6 1/2 years it would return far more than Gray. In real life, we chose this investment every time. Not so for many fans when it comes to trades. Fans would not like me running a team because I would make decisions based on the overall return. Of course, as you pointed out. The return on Petty might be nothing or a perineal all-star. There is a lower minimum return with Petty. There is also the potential for a far greater return with Petty which I believe is your point.
  12. Major League Ready
    You are contradicting yourself. You have concluded revenue is a great indicator or success. Then, you conclude that the practices of the most successful small market teams have led to lower attendance and reduced revenue. This is contradictory. Is it not? If you think I am treating revenue as an independent variable, you are not understand the basic purpose of the exercise. I am sure you agree that it does not make sense to evaluate the acquisition methods of teams with grouping them in terms of revenue potential. In other words, it would be expected for markets with 2X the revenue potential to utilize different acquisition and retention practices. When we do this, the data for acquisition methods is crystal clear for anyone that cares to look. I would bet the vast majority never bother to look because they would prefer to believe whatever form of logics supports their predisposed opinion. The basic flaw in your position (IMO) is that a market like LA or NY simply has far greater capacity to produce income. The twins can win 100 games every year and retaion every player and they are still going to produce half the revenue of the top markets. IDK if continuity of roster is more important to revenue production than winning but I doubt it. What I know without a shadow of doubt is that over the last 20 years, trading for prospects has had far more impact on winning than trading for established players. Is your argument really revenue? Do you care more about revenue than winning? You are opposing hard fact because you would prefer practices that are not supported by the facts. I have approached this in a completely unbiased way. I wondered based on posts I saw here what acquisition method was most effective. I took the time to look at most of the small and mid market playoff teams for the last 20 years because I wanted to know fact vs opinion. I am simply reporting what has happened. In other words, what has been most effective and the facts are very clear.
  13. Major League Ready
    Actually, there were three teams outside the top 10 in revenue that won the WS in the early 2000s. In the past 18 years since that period, only one team in that revenue segment has won the WS. Therefore, the odds are not 18:1. There are 20 teams outside the top 10. Therefore, the odds of one of those 20 teams winning is 20X18 or once every 360 years. Those teams are making more money for the small market teams and they are making a lot more money for the players. Who is going to initiate change that diminishes the income of the teams and the players?
  14. Major League Ready
    I did not intend to move the goal posts. Some have suggested a package with Julien. I did state earlier that I don't believe the Brewers trading Burnes without getting a high probability prospect and I don't think you believe that either. We can discuss trading guys that won't get it done but what's the point. Therefore, I am speaking conceptually of a package that would land Burnes. Revenue is a crucial component to any discussion of how a team is built. Significant incremental revenue changes what a team can and can't do so to ignore revenue in a discussion of how players were acquired and successful teams built would be ignorant.
  15. Major League Ready
    I simply don't agree and neither do the Tampa Bat Rays. Obviously, if the prospects flame out there is no problem. If one of those players like Prelipp lives up to his potential, you have lost an important player for 6-7 years. Can you survive it? Sure. However, the team is definitely worse off for several years if a prospect like Prelipp pans out and some here suggest Julien plus a couple good prospects. How many more wins is Burnes good for over Julien. Maybe two wins for one year. What about the other 5 years we would get from Julien? History provides the proof of concept and trading for prospects has been far more effective than trading for established players. Rentals have had very little impact.
  16. Major League Ready
    I wouldn't dispute the Royals ponied up for Zobrist but do you think he made the difference in them winning the WS. He did not matter during the regular season and the Royals won the WS 4-1. Was trading for Zobrist responsible for them winning the WS? I really don't think it mattered. Do we want the Twins to follow what Miami did? I want to watch a good product every year. I watch 100+ games/year, every year. I want them to give me a good product most years and short-term strategies do not facilitate that goal. Three-quarters or more of WS winners going forward are going to come from top 10 revenue teams. That means that the bottom 20 teams will win a WS every 80 years if they are average among those 20 teams. Sacrificing sustained success given this reality does not make sense to me but we all have different desires. I prefer strategies that get me to the playoffs as often as possible vs pushing chips in to improve odds (maybe) in the short-term.
  17. Major League Ready
    The history in this case is that one team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue has won a Championship since the early 2000s. That would be the Royals. The acquisition method for their top WAR players is below. The short-term move the made did not get them a Championship. He (Shields was already gone). Of course, Davis was prominent on that team but he was a mediocre player that blossomed when converted to a RP. They had one rental in Zobrist but I would not say he was essential to them winning the WS. Even if he was, he represents a much smaller investment in prospect capital. The trade most responsible for this team's success was trading away a great established player in Grienke for Cain and Escobar. Did the White Sox have any rental in 2005? I don't think they did. The 2003 Marlins did some wheeling and dealing so maybe you could make a case their short-term approach worked but I see very little in terms of examples of rentals playing a big part in winning championships for teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue. I can however list many examples of players acquired for rentals that contributed to long-term success.
  18. Major League Ready
    I am assuming the cost for Burnes will hurt. Milwaukee is not trading Burnes for anyone that does not have a high probability of helping them for 6-7 years. I think that type of short-term focus is very poor asset management. Those low-cost high producing assets are prerequisites to success for modest revenue teams. We just disagree which is fine. Again, I look at the facts (history) and they are overwhelming. If we were to do a risk profile, there are many other uncertainties with this team. Betting a lot on one year is reckless.
  19. Major League Ready
    It's not just the Rays. Cleveland and Oakland have done the same thing. Those 3 franchises have far more 90 win seasons over the past 25 years than all of the other teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue and they are near the very bottom in terms of revenue. The Twins would have an advantage over these teams If they could follow this model with the same degree of success. The Twins have a modest amount of incremental revenue that could be spent to extend key players. Yes, all of those teams have extended players but the twins could extend an extra player or two.
  20. Major League Ready
    Building depth in a farm system enables trading of some of those assets. I would never argue it should not be done. What I will argue having studied how top players were acquired for literally every playoff team outside the top 10 in revenue for the last 25 years, is that trading for prospects is FAR more important than trading prospects for established players. The strategy of building assets in this way enables the trading of SOME prospects while sustaining success. I have outlined how easy it is to look up any team from the past and determine how it was constructed. I doubt anyone actually takes the time to look but anyone who does so will not argue this point because the facts are overwhelming.
  21. Major League Ready
    If the team is as bad off as you suggest .... The right move would be to go into full rebuild mode. BTW .... I don't know how much more you could ask for from 1st year players at 2B and 3B. Producing players like Lewis and Julien is the most essential aspect of building a winning team so to paint them as question marks is silly. We could say Correa is a question mark after last season. If you are looking for guarantees, you have chosen the wrong sport. If you want a team that can fill holes with elite free agents, you need to become a Dodger fan.
  22. Major League Ready
    Broadcasting rights have absolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing. They could split the revenue anyway they please under the existing system. The Dodgers / Yankees, etc are a business worth billions. Redistributing that income going forward would drastically reduce the value of their franchises. Why in the world would they agree? It's just slightly more likely than Jeff Bezos agree to share their massive revenue with less fortunate competitors. The only way this happens is if the revenue disparity kills the rest of the league. BTW ... when the luxury tax threshold was being discussed during the last CBA, there were very few people here who stood up and said they hope the owners don't give in on increasing the level of disparity. The players actually started out pushing for less revenue sharing. Why, because teams like the Dodgers can go wild and their mistakes won't cripple them. The top revenue teams are therefore more inclined to take a giant leap. (See Ohtani / Yamamoto) The players also pushed hard for increasing the luxury tax threshold. Should we expect them to care more about parity than earning the most dollars possible. The players want that revenue advantage in the largest markets and it's also too the benefit of the league in general to put the stars in the largest markets.
  23. Major League Ready
    Have you asked yourself why other teams with similar revenue NEVER trade away premium assets for a player with 1 year of control. Actually, they do just the opposite. They trade away this type of player most of the time in order to sustain the team beyond a given year. The answer is that it's extremely short-term focused and makes it very difficult to sustain success. Anyone could throw in all the chips to give a team a good chance at short-term success. Go to Fangraphs. Pull up any 90 win team outside the top third in revenue. The players will be organized by WAR in the standard view. Then, pick a level of WAR that you think is a significant player. (I use 1.5 WAR). Then, use BB Reference to determine how that player was acquired if you don't know. You will find that trades for prospects or players that have made the ML level but have not yet produced 1.5 WAR are far more prevalent than trading for established players. The example below is the 100 win 2021 Tampa Bay Rays. 45% of the WAR produced from players producing 1.5 WAR or more were acquired by trading for prospects/unproven players. 25% came from players they drafted. The only trade they made for a proven player was the fleecing they gave the Pirates known as Tyler Glasnow and Austin Hedges. Glasnow produced 2.6 WAR that year.
  24. Major League Ready
    I am not sure what is the best solution but this is an enormous opportunity to increase access to the game. MLB hired a group of heavy hitters with the right background to find a solution. I would think they have developed a framework with the type of accessibility Ashbury outlined. I think this is going to be a good thing that could take a couple years to fully unfold.
  25. Major League Ready
    1. Because the big market teams are going to outbid the twins on Snell and Montgomery. 2. The Mariners might not be willing to part with the young/cost controlled SPs. 3. The players/prospects capital going back will reflect the point you are making and we won't have to give up a premium prospect.
×
×
  • Create New...