Major League Ready

I don't know what to expect from Kepler either but I do know that we are thin in the OF. If we trade Vazquez as is now rumored and Polanco we are down to $102M, Would clearing $10M for Kepler make a difference. I guess like always it comes down to the return. I would not be on Kepler if a good return was available. I am hoping Polanco and Kepler go to Seattle for one of their young pitchers.

If you have not seen, the Twins appear to be pretty aggressive about moving Vazquez. Christian Vazquez Trade

A single player is making $30M a year and your argument is that they are raking it in at $10M a year? How many businesses do you know where the goal of the business is to make 1/3 of their highest paid employee? If this is the expectation, shouldn't it be expected of all the teams? Should all of the teams make $300M a year while the players make $4 billion? Piece together your entire argument and it's ludicrous. You don't expect them to spend more than they make which by your account has averaged $10M. Therefore, we are talking about spending another $10M which on average has produced 1.2 WAR a season. To go on and on about stretching the spending makes zero sense. It's simply not all that impactful. Drafting Cavaco instead of Carroll or Stot is impactful. If the Twins spent every dollar of profit we would still be at a significant disadvantage and here is where we differ. You point to team spending as the driving force to winning. I point to revenue which is the actual driving force here. The argument about spending to market potential is absolutely ridiculous. My god, if an executive in any 9 figure business suggested this approach they would be laughed out of the room. Baseball has a giant revenue disparity and that is the source of the problem. It's not changing so to get this bent out of shape is a waste of time. Keep in mind during the last CBA it was the owners tried to keep the disparity in check and the players stood firm on widening the gap.

They did get $30M in BAM money for 23 and then we landed Correa late. I am guessing these two factors are why we saw the record payroll. They looked ahead to 24 knowing a lot of money would roll of and they could deal Kepler / Polanco or decline their options so there was no way they would get stuck without an out in 24.

Yes, we are fans but you are far too smart and analytically inclined to allow bias to influence conclusions to this degree. Like I said earlier, Atlanta has at least a $250M revenue advantage. It takes very little financial acumen to conclude the two organizations will be run differently out of necessity. It's not that easy to misrepresent revenue for a baseball team. The sources are not complicated unless you think their is a conspiracy on attendance. The TV revenue is public record because it's paid out by public companies and the distribution model is public. Sponsorships are paid by public companies so those records are easy to verify.

If the best thing for the business financially was for them to "eat it" in 2024 ... That's no doubt what they would do. You are insisting they take a hit because you assume it will destroy their momentum when you don't know what they will plan to do and none of us knows what will actually be done. This absurd conjecture would not be tolerated in an actual business environment. Spending $33M on Correa produced 1.1WAR and there are endless examples around the league. While spending is obvious advantageous, it's obviously no sure thing. I bet your employer would like it if you were willing to work for less than market rate. Players act in their financial best interests. Your expectation / insistence that a business does not is fanatical. BTW ... Any junior level financial analyst could construct a revenue estimate for the twins that was relatively accurate. IDK about Spotrac but Statista has a subscription service and that service is dependent upon accurate data. My former firm had a subscription and their numbers are pretty close to Spotrac. The whole I don't care about legit is just refusal to accept anything other than your insisted upon spending level.

The thought of a QO next year had not occurred to me. Kepler had 2.4 WAR for the 2nd half of 2023. If he plays close to that level all year in 2024, he would get a very healthy offer in free agency and the QO would be declined. I am not predicting he produces 5 WAR next year but 3.5 or 4 would not be shocking at which point he gets a 3 year offer and the QO would be rejected. It's an interesting twist.

We just don't have much for OF depth but selling high on a one-year assets for multi-year assets has a lot of upside. That said the return has to be good given our OF situation. If Seattle really valued Kepler as part of the return for one of their young pitchers that would be a great long-term move. Kepler and Polanco for Miller (they are not trading Kirby) would set us up very well for the next few years. This approach would allow them to go sign an OFer and good BP arm in free agency.

The number used for payroll is almost always misrepresented in these conversations. The number used to divide against revenue should include benefits of around 11%. Many people even omit dead contracts or injured players. Corporations do not omit costs when they report or speak of expenses. Not only is it GAAP, it simply makes absolutely no sense to omit parts of total cost for any form of business analytics. Percentage of payroll = Active players + injured or released + Minor League Contracts + Benefits / Revenue. Spotrac provides these totals for current year estimates but for some reason does not include them in 2023 numbers. BTW… When discussing 2023 vs 2024 payroll I don’t recall anyone considering the fact the Twins got a $30M BAM payment last year. Obviously, this impacted 2023 spending but many ignore this in setting 2024 expectations. I want them to spend as much as possible but I don’t think the way in which that number is arrived at by fans is determined with all the facts nor is it determined in an unbiased way.

The Braves have roughly double the revenue of the Minnesota Twins. So, no, the Twins can't run their organization the same way. Would you "operate" the same way with half or double your current income? Obviously, I share in your desire for the team to generate more income. However, I expect them to generate that income before they spend it.

I am asking for the link to the source that provides market scores. You maintain this shows what the twins spending. I believe what I will find is that it shows market potential but does this source suggest spending should be linked in anyway to this market score. IDK about the market potential especially given the current climate for broadcast revenues. It would generally take my firm a month just to gather information and conducting interviews to gain the base knowledge to begin to put together this type of assessment so I think you are assuming a great deal to think you are prepared to project what this market can produce at this given moment.

No doubt Atlanta has shelled out for some free agents. They also have guys they extended for what is well below market rate. They got 3 extra years control of Acuna for $17M/year which is half his market rate. What do you think Austin Riley would get if he were a free agent? Probably closer to 30M/year? Ozuna had the same potential but has not worked out as well. They got 3 extra years control of Albies for $7M a year which is incredible value, right? $22m/year for Matt Olson looks far better than $33M for Correa. Olson was worth over 6 war this year and the contract is through his age 36 season. The Braves have not done these ridiculous deals with guys through their age 40 season. They let Donaldson walk because he wanted a contract through his age 38 season. The Braves have been damn smart in how they spend!

Do you have a link to this source? It sounds like MLB has evaluated markets as to their potential. You have somehow concluded that team spending should be based on potential as opposed to actual revenue which is fanatical logic. I am not sure I can illustrate how vehemently this premise would be rejected in any major corporation in America. I would guess most people who post here have the potential to make more money than they do presently. Do you suppose posters here base their budget on potential or what they actually earn?

The Mariners are not trading Kirby unless they get an absolutely absurd haul. How many examples can we come up with where a pitcher with Kirby's profile was traded by a team entering a window of contention. There is probably no more than one or two examples if any that would be reasonable comps in the last 20 years. We did not get Alcantara or Perez from Miami. The Twins got a guy that had been a mid-rotation guy that they obviously believed had upside. Seattle is a great trade partner but Miller, Hancock or Woo will be much more likely to be traded. Seattle is in a strong position to contend and they don't need to trade a proven elite SP to get hitting. That can be done by trading away one of the other three or free agency. Put the shoe on the other foot. If the twins were in their position we would all be saying absolutely no way should they give up Kirby when one of Hancock, Woo or Miller will bring back a great hitter.

I just don't know if that model is feasible, especially in this market. It seems like the most likely solution is one produced by MLB which would provide a much better opportunity for signing large / national organizations to advertising contracts. There would also be advantages to scaling the supporting infrastructure and personnel. A coordinated effort through MLB would also likely make it easier to distribute game of the week type contracts so that there was not conflict. IDK, there is much to consider. My guess is that this evolves over the next few years.

You are assuming that this prediction model is correct and outside entities like Forbes / Statista and others report are wrong. Statista and others like them are subscription services people / companies pay for to get accurate data. Should we assume they are incompetent? Should we assume the Twins TV deals have always been among the lowest in the league because they are just that inept and negotiating a contract?

It sounds like you want them to spend based on a projection of what this market should be able to produce as opposed to actual revenue. Go ahead and be mad they are not generating more revenue but it makes absolutely no sense to be mad they are not spending money that they are not actually generating. If your wife said hey ... I read a study that says we have the capacity to make 50% more than we are making so I am going to spend 50% more, would say geez hon that seems like perfectly reasonable? You have been hammering this point about market rankings. While it is worthy of exploring if this market really has that kind of potential, it makes zero sense to insist they spend based on potential. Like I said, be mad they are not generating more money but expecting them to spend money they are not making is sure to end in disappointment.

The irony is that it is quite common for people to write about their unwillingness to pay for TV coverage while as a group we insist they spend more. Not exactly a consistent point of view.

You know we are talking about something that is unlikely when you have to have to reference a trade that was made over 30 years ago as an example.

This makes perfect sense. However, the general gist of what people are asking for is that they ignore any common sense or business intelligence. Basically, we want them to place no value on money because they have a lot of it. My wish is not that they ignore any financial prudence but that they find avenues to generate more money by expanding the availability of TV coverage because I find now wisdom in hoping / insisting a business continue to spend while revenues go down. I am hoping they are willing to spend as much as they are reasonably able.

If you are going to take the risk on a rookie, Martin makes waaaaaaay more sense with Kiersey and Erod as back-ups in the event he does not rise to the occasion. That would allow Erod 2-3 months at AA. Even that would be super aggressive but it's a lot better plan than jumping him from high A to MLB.

That deal has a lot of potential upside but I would think Toronto wants pitching back. Either a great prospect or more likely if it were the Twins, Ryan or Ober. That potentially hurts us for several years where the downside of the deal you suggested is one year where Kepler is concerned and we have multiple potential replacements for Polanco. This one is the definition of high risk / high reward.

With the opinion that players should make generational wealth in a decade and go wherever they can maximize that wealth but owners should not care about making money. Personally, if the Pohlads were willing to dig into their own pockets, I would hope they would opt to spend $20M on homeless shelters or battered women shelters or any other worthy cause rather than produce 2 more wins for our team through spending in free agency. That would be a much better use of their money.

He does strike out too much but his OPS is about 100 points higher than Brooks Lee. Of course, Lee has more defensive value but let's not run Severino out of town because of his K rate. Let's hope instead that he works that down early next year and contributes to the big league club.

I see the likelihood of trade exactly the opposite. What outfield depth do we have if Kepler is traded. Who knows if Buxton can play the OF at all. Matt Wallner was very good but he has a total of a little over 300 major league ABs. Larnach is the definition of unproven. What do you have if Wallner gets hurt? I would seem to me that Kepler is much less likely to go than Polanco or Farmer. I could see both of Polanco and Farmer being traded before Kepler. Polanco has the most trade value and the highest salary so my bet his he does not break camp with the Twins.