Major League Ready

The Twins offense was quite good after the AS break. I would determine what to do with position players after taking a run at Montgomery / Rodriquez oe perhaps Stroman. If we can't land one of those guys maybe we take a chance on Giolito or Maeda. Once the pitching spend is determined we address the position players. If we spend $25M on a SP it becomes necessary to trade 1 or 2 of Polanco / Farmer and Kepler and I would prioritize keeping them in the reverse order. Kepler is a starter where the other two are bench players and we have far more depth in the IF. The next priority is CF. If we could sign Kiermaier or Jung-Ho Lee, I would trade Polanco or Farmer or both. We can get a very good SP and Kiermaier or Lee for $140M but Polanco would have to go and possibly Farmer as well if it were one of the top SPs.

I am assuming Polanco and Farmer are not both going to be here and they just might trade both. Also assuming Gordon is gone. That's another $12-18M.

I like the Lee idea. However, I am not following the numbers. If you trade Polanco, you are at $106.4M (see below) while keeping Thielbar. The latest budget blurb is that they will cut at least 10% which is a max of $140M. That gives you $33M to spend. MLB Trade Rumors projects Lee at 5/50. Even at $11M AAV for Lee you would have up to $22M to spend on pitching. The next guy I would move in this equation is Farmer which would give you $38M available for pitching after signing Lee.

You might want to think this through. If Ohtani will generate $50M for the Twins. He will generate $100M for the Dodgers.

They can still improve this team If at least 10% means they are willing to go as high as 90% under the right circumstances. That's still $140M.

How about Jung-Ho Lee? You don't often get a crack at guys that age. I am with you. The rest of the available position players does not excite much. Trade Rumors predicts 4/80 for Hernadez. He was very good 20-22 but mediocre this season. It's a little harder for me to be excited about a guy coming off a bad season. Soler has a high K rate and so bad in the OF that he is basically a DH. I am kind of intrigued by Lee.

Darn good point. I thought the same thing but just let it go. What I was thinking when I responded was that some of the multi-million dollar facilities upgrades (if planned) could be postponed.

Fair question. Let me start by saying I am advocating for what I would do. Will they be willing? IDK but some here will recall that a few years ago I was dead set against that type of free agent. My position has changed because the team is in a different position. The FO position could be different than the past as well although the reduced payroll does throw some cold water on the whole thing. Even if they are willing, their willingness might get trampled where the top guys are concerned by all the big market teams that are looking for pitching this year. A lot of the top guys are targeting pitching not to mention the position player side is much weaker than pitching. That said freeing up funds to be spent elsewhere is still a good idea. That might mean Giolitto instead of Montgomery but I would still trade both Polanco and Farmer if I could turn that payroll into a good SP. I am not trading top prospects. The team’s ceiling as I illustrated in a previous post is much higher keeping them so if we are looking to build a true contender trading top prospects is a bad idea. They might be able to trade Julien for pitching but team’s that trade top pitching are generally looking for prospects because they are rebuilding. It’s just really rare / almost unheard of for a true contender to trade a true top of the rotation player for another established player. Seattle for example could keep their pitching and easily acquire a Polanco type player for prospects. However, I would not be at all surprised if they acquire pitching via trade. I just don't think it will be the big name everyone wants. It will be a guy they believe has upside.

You are sure right about contracts for pitchers but didn't we also say something similar about Correa and the contract he would command? We have also never in my memory had this much young position talent which allows for a significant FA pitcher to be signed. Now, if they bring what has been projected, it's not happening but I would like to think it's a possibility. I was the guy dead set against this kind of acquisition a few years ago but I think we are positioned very differently now. If they go trade for a SP, I don't believe it's an established ace. It will be someone like Lopez who was seen as a mid-rotation guy. He elevated his status this year and I think the Twins look for someone similar.

Really well-balanced thoughts here, Doc. I also don't think they are poised to win the WS as constructed. However, I also don't think spending an extra $10M or even $20M or even $30M is likely to get us there. We need the new Young core that is replacing the old core to be better than what Buxton / Polanco / Kepler / Rosario etc produced. The twist that does not get much attention is that trading prospects for vets diminishes the supply of cheap talent that enables us to spend on free agency. The reason we were able to sign Correa regardless of if we think it's a good investment is because we had so much young talent. The current situation with Polanco is a great example. I would require trading a great deal of prospect capital to get a true front of the rotation SP. Whereas trading Polanco frees up payroll and also brings in prospects. That an uncertain but potentially incredibly impactful swing between those two strategies. Perhaps more importantly, the prospects offer the potential of 6-7 years of service where the trading for established players in usually for 2 years. No doubt spending enhances the chances of winning. However, the source of the Twins relatively lower spending is not that they don't spend. It's that they don't generate as much revenue as many other teams. Being disappointed that they don't spend like teams generating a $100M or more in revenue makes little sense to me. However, I hope they stretch the payroll as a far as possible too.

You are chasing a model that works for top 10 revenue teams. We are not one of them and chasing a model that you can't possibly execute is a horrendously poor strategy. Get over it. There are 10 teams that produce $100M or $200M or $300M more in revenue. Guess what, they are going to get those free agents. I will take year after year of 90 win teams and take my chances winning the WS. If we win our share, we win a title every 30 years. The Rangers had never won. I watch 120 games/year and want to see a good product as often as possible. That's the model I want them to follow, especially when the model you insist upon is simply not a model a team with below average revenue can possibly execute. BTW ... Bryon Stott produce 3.9 WAR this year vs 1.1 for Correa and Stott won a GG at 2B. I will take him at SS and $30M that would buy me a top SP without a shadow of a doubt.

This is where we differ and that's OK. We know that on average the additional $10M believe is absolutely critical will on average return 1.2 WAR. I just don’t see this aspect of roster development and the 1.2 WAR it would project to bring as being critical. The decisions / startegies that make or break mid market teams are drafting and trading for prospects as opposed to trading prospects. I am still pissed about them taking Cavaco when Stott and Carroll were on the board and were widely considered the best available. Those are the decisions that truly impact a franchise, especially one outside the top 10 in revenue. We would have a better / younger / healthier shortstop than Correa had we picked Stott and also have another $30M to spend. Of course, we all know what Carroll has become and we would not have to spend money on a back-up CF. Trading for prospects as opposed to trading them away is far more important for a mid market team. Take our current situation with Polanco as an example. While the return is uncertain, trading Polanco has the potential to have a huge impact on the next several years and the sustainability of the team. If we trade Polanco, and use the dollars for a top SP, that move alone has more potential than keeping Polanco given Julien, Lewis, and Correa are the primary players at the positions he can play and he plays two of those positions very poorly. Sure, the SP we trade for could produce nothing like Mahle and Polanco could return to 2019 form or the reverse is possible. However, the far greater potential impact is the difference in trading away a couple top prospects for pitching as opposed to getting a couple prospects back for Polanco. The net difference is several prospects including one of two elite prospects. The difference in this strategy not only costs us the kind of top prospects needed to acquire a front of the rotation SP, it also cost us a couple prospects that would come back from trading Polanco. This enormous swing in prospect capital is something that Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have understood and utilized to be better than all the other teams outside the top 10 in revenue. Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have also been very good at getting MLB ready players or players that have already debuted but not yet produced. Therefore, the impact is not 4 years off like it would be if we were talking about trading for A Ball players. Trading Polanco could hurt for a year. However, he produced just over 1 WAR last year and spending the money elsewhere could have a greater short or even long-term gain if it allows us to bring in a good free agent. It’s also remotely possible none of the players we would have traded away for pitching or the players we got back from trading Polanco will turn out. However, teams trading front line SPs are not looking for a slightly above average guy with two years remaining. They want elite prospects not the packages for Polanco / Larnach etc that have been floated here. They want the kind of prospects that profile to become great players. Polanco would not return that type of prospect but he would return decent prospects that change the ceiling when trading Polanco vs trading for pitching or any other position. These decisions and strategy are far more important to sustained winning than spending an extra $10M this season. Bottom line is trading Polanco has a far higher ceiling than keeping him. We can afford the SP that is arguably our most important need and we will make room for Lee / Severino / Miranda. Developing those players into ML assets is also important and you can’t do that and keep all the Vets.

You are absolutely right. It does not all have to come from player payroll and it's a pretty good bet they will cut in other areas. Let's see what happens before we assume the worst.

Who is saying they should not bring in free agents. This whole discussion is exceptionally exaggerated. You are not your normal rational self when it comes to spending. Defending a position that the twins won't spend on elite talent with Cleveland and Tampa as examples makes zero sense. Tampa and Cleveland literally never go after that type of free agent EVER.

People keep saying this but I have not heard anyone from the Twins FO use this metric in 10 years and I heard it a total of one time. Regardless, it makes absolutely no sense for anything other than a rough guideline which is evident in this case. If revenue goes down by 50% their spending capacity does not go down by 50% of the decrease. I have had many clients over the years that used very ill-conceived metrics. Even if the Twins still use this measure which I highly doubt, it still makes no sense for us to use a measure we know is very flawed.

The percentage of revenue is a very rough guideline. I have always wondered does that mean salary plus benefits and taxation like every other business or is that a measure against salary only. If revenue decreases by $25M, how much do they need to reduce spending to net the same result. Obviously, the answer is $25M. How that equates to percentage of revenue is nothing more than an approximation.

$10M buys one win in free agency. Is this really the most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level?

I am not at all suggesting what you are saying. I have said on several occasions that Polanco is the only player among Polanco/Farmer/Kepler that should/will be traded. If he is the only one of the three traded, they have enough payroll room to resign or replace Gray and I have been very consistent with that being a top priority and it's in the plan I posted. Given I said they only need to trade one guy I have no idea where you are coming up with trading the 2 hole hitter and the 3/4 hole hitter. Plus, Polanco is no longer a primary player. Julien and Lewis have taken those roles. He will still get a lot of playing time and Lee/Severino will have a hard time filling his shoes but trading players like Polanco (assuming value comes back) has proven to be a very effective practice for other teams.

Agree with the doom and gloom being pathetic. However, I think you are going to lose people with it being a "transition" year because people are going to take that as stepping back when it sounds to me like you are talking about the young (cheap) guys taking roster spots which of course happened over the course of 23 and Lee/Severino are also on the door step. It's also simply time to move on from Polanco. I see the all of this as taking a step forward with the exception of the loss of Gray. They are going to have to find a way to replace him and that probably was never going to be by signing Blake Snell or similar FAs.

In the next two years, assuming Polanco is traded and the others are retained, they still have $30M coming off between Kepler, Vasquez, Farmer, and Thielbar. That will cover the arbitration increases. I think it's also reasonable to believe that the TV revenue will get back to the previous level or perhaps even higher in 2-3 years as the new distribution model takes shape. I also would not be surprised if someone like Amazon or Apple steps in relatively soon.

Do you have information we are not aware of? Has something with substantive information been published that illustrates how that revenue will be replaced or are you just making an assumption with nothing to support it?

A 1 year $20M deal would look a lot better with a 2nd year team option.

They won't need the money if they acquire pitching the way Tampa has acquired pitching. Glasnow had not yet produced a 1 WAR season when Tampa acquired him and Eflin cost 40M over 3 years.

The payroll is $104M without Polanco and $98M without Polanco and Farmer. It will not be necessary to trade both players and Kepler is not going anywhere unless they get an offer they can't refuse. If Polanco is the only one traded, they will still have $36M to spend if they get to the high end of the estimate $140M. They were not going after Bellinger even with $150M budget and there is very little in the form of big RH bats available in free agency that fit this roster. They don't have to trade any of Kepler / Polanco and Farmer. However, they could make payroll room for a significant SP signing by moving one of them. Polanco is the most likely of the three because the platoon of Julien / Farmer is better than having Polanco at 2B and Lewis is a much better option at 3B.

Are we really going to hear the "if they don't spend big we will lose 90+ games" BS again this off-season. Our top 6 position players by WAR made a total of $12M. Correa and Buxton produced under 2 WAR for $48M.