Major League Ready

They are in Chapter 11 which is reorganization vs Chapter 7 which is liquidation. I am not an attorney but my understanding is they would have to get permission from the bankruptcy court but perhaps an attorney will chime in. BTW .... Has the sale been completed or just announced? This could be pending bankruptcy court permission.

I guess we just have different interpretations of rare. One a year among 30 teams to me is rare. At that rate a team would be expected to complete such a trade every 30 years. To me that's rare and I think it's becoming even more rare. Then, how many are completed by teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenue which is the appropriate measure when asking how often does a team like the Twins trade away their top prospect. Also, that article was not specifically about a team's top prospect. Some of those guys were outside the top 50 which I would agree is a significant prospect but also not the same as a top 25 type guy like Swanson. Point being a top prospect that is ranked 65th is not the same as Brooks Lee.

Peralta is pretty darn good and has 3 years of control. Gurriel has some appeal too but we need someone who can step into CF as needed. I also don't see him getting an AAV of $20M. He has not had that level of impact. Trade rumors has him at 4/$54M. If we are going to give up Lee, I would rather they trade a combination of Polanco/Kepler/Lee with Seattle for one of their young guys that potential has more upside and more years of control. It would also leave even more payroll space to go get a CFer and a BP arm.

He opted out of his final year for $21M so his agent must be pretty sure he is getting more than a 1/$12M prove it contract.

I listen to a lot of MLB network while I am driving. They have some former GMs and industry reporters in various forms. The topic of reluctance to move top prospects is mentioned often in the course of these discussions. It's become commonly accepted that teams are reluctant to move top prospects. Of course, we have all heard much discussion about the new breed of GMs that focus on acquisition and development of prospects. This new breed had a more sophisticated understanding of asset management and they are more focused on sustained success. Assets with 7 years of (inexpensive) control are more likely to facilitate these goals. Trading 7 year assets for 2 year assets does not promote sustained success. It is a strategy that concentrates assets all-in for a short period. Many fans like this approach but the expectation of GMs today is to deliver sustained success. I am sure they have developed various analytical models to help understand how playoff teams have acquired their top producing players. I put together my own model using Fangraphs and BB Reference by taking the top teams in a given year and ranking the players by WAR and organizing them by acquisition method. I did this specifically for teams outside the top 10 in revenue because I was interested in what practices would be most effective for the Twins or teams with similar revenue constraints. Players acquired as prospects or before establishing a WAR above 1.5 by far outweighed players that were acquired as established players. If I did this for fun, you can bet teams have put forth significant effort to develop models that help them understand how to manage their assets.

This is why I qualified the statement with if this is true. Richie and I were discussing the difficulty of trying to discuss this when we know so little about the costs associated and who was responsible for those costs (Twins or Bally's) However, within your response you have pointed out an important difference between the Twins or MLB in covering costs. That's that the cost of personnel and equipment is allocated to other sports in the off-season.

Thanks for the list. I would say that 11 in 25 years would qualify is an unusual occurrence or we can look at it as a percentage of all trades where this is a tiny percentage. I would have guessed one every 2-3 years. It would be interesting to know what others have occurred since 2015 because it seems teams have become more reluctant to trade these top prospects.

Someone suggested that Bally's does not pay for any of the production cost. If that's true, and they were willing to pay $50M for broadcast rights, they forecasted add revenues of $50M + their operating costs and profit.

My bad. I did not realize local TV revenue is shared.

What they have said is that they lost their contract. That's very different than saying they expect to lose 100% of the revenue generated from TV. Also, you are doing math that makes no sense. They don't cling to this notion of 50% of revenue to payroll as you are doing here. If they lose $50M in revenue, they have to cut $50M in cost to counteract the loss. Show us a source that says they are assuming or projecting a total loss in TV revenue.

How do we know who shoulders what costs in the agreement between Bally and a team? I have no idea so I am not even remotely suggesting you're wrong. I am just wondering if this is documented somewhere.

How often do you see a team trade their top prospect or 2nd best prospect. It's rare. Your opinion is supported by a lot of history.

Steer does not have to start to be valuable. He is definitely better than Farmer for $6M less and he is more versatile than Polanco with a similar bat and he has 5 more years of control. Regardless, he would be great trade bait right so there is no scenario where we would not have been much better off passing on Mahle. CES crushed Milb pitching and had a 112 wRC+ to begin his career. He struggled for a month or so but posted a wRC+ of 155 for his last 100 ABs. I have heard him discussed on some of the national radio shows and he is viewd as great potential to be an elite bat. Nobody is talking about Miranda and even if they were, dismissing the value of having CES as an asset make absolutely no sense. Steer and CES or Polanco and CES would get us one of Seattle's young pitchers so that is the cost of the Mahle trade at this moment.

Lee really does not hit well enough from the right side for his switch hitting to matter much. The guy who can hit from both sides is Severino but he gets no love. Lee had a wRC+ of 100 at aa and 78 at AAA. Severino was 139 at AA and 100 at AAA. Of course, there is no comparison defensively. Just saying Lee's bat has not screamed elite. I also wonder if Severino is not a better trade chip than we think.

I sure hope it does not cost Lee even though I am not as high on him as some. My hope is that Seattle really likes Polanco or Kepler or both. IDK what else we would have to add but it's not a Lee level prospect.

Yet, without any real knowledge of the situation you have determined they are grossly incompetent. You also continue to suggest they are representing this as a total loss "can't make any money" from broadcasts. That has never been their representation just your interpretation. The fact is they don't have any broadcast partner for 2023 and it's hardly unwarranted to forecast a decrease in revenue. Incompetence would be for them to develop a budget assuming no loss in revenue.

Are you kidding? We would be in much better shape had they not invested so heavily in a team that was not even close to being a real contender. CES would be the starting 1B. He started off a little slow but he was already a beast the last 6 weeks of the season. He could be an elite hitter. Kirilloff would play both OF and 1B. CES would play 1B/DH and could also cover 3B when Lewis is out, has a day-off or covers SS when Correa is out. CES would look great on this roster. Steer takes Farmer's spot or even Polanco's spot. He is a much better hitter than Farmer and he can play in the OF, Farmer's 6.6M or Polanco's $10.5M goes toward a RP or part of the investment in a SP. The two of them would fit here exceptionally well right now.

Great post. I highlighted the cost portion because we often see people do the math without any idea of the production costs. There is so much we don't including what the group MLB hired to address the problem has come up with. It seems reasonable, MLB will want to develop a model where the teams and the league control distribution.

You are trying very hard to manipulate the facts to satisfying yourself. Even if there were zero start-up costs or they applied none, revenue will still be down significantly so your point about start-up costs are speculative and self-serving.

Who has ever suggested they will lose ALL of their TV revenue? This is not the kind of problem that is resolved quickly. It's all together possible a distribution will develop that allows the twins and other effected teams to gain back 100% or more of their revenue but that model will have to be built and marketed before that happens. It seems like you want to blame this on incompetence to make yourself feel better. The problem here is not them. It's the people who think anyone who can't reverse the impact of an industry changing event in a short period of time is "grossly incompetent".

You beat me to it by a minute RB. Who here did not wonder what would happen to spending upon learning of the loss of TV revenue? Isn’t it highly probable a reporter would happen to ask how this will impact spending? Yet, the assumption is this was leaked. Even if they were not asked, perhaps they wanted the average fan to understand they would not be spending much on free agents because they are going to be losing a portion of a significant revenue stream. The vast majority of people understanding record spending is going to be curtained a bit in such an instance so communicating this is the best way to deal with most of the fan base. There is a small portion of the fan base that won’t be happy no matter how they handle it. How many times have we seen people complain on this site that they make a politically correct statement instead of just saying what they are really thinking? They had record spending, and they are they are losing a large chunk of revenue. There is no risk in revealing they will cut spending to anyone viewing this through a rational lens. There is not a company on the planet that would not cut cost if they suddenly lost 10% of their revenue. Let’s face it, some sports fans don’t always view these things through a rational lens.

I wondered about how they value these guys. Some are more proven than others but you make a good point if they feel equally as comfortable with all five. That just did not seem likely to me. Damn nice for them if that's the case. It's going to be tough to make that deal because there will be great competition for whomever they give up. We helped put the Reds in great shape to beat out us for Seattle's pitching.

I pray Correa is much better this year and I also hope Lee is better than 1.1 WAR in 2025. It will really sting if Correa is not closer to his career norms. That money could have been spent on a top pitcher and Lewis or Lee at SS. As a group we can't complain about a FO mistake when most people here were absolutely adamant about retaining him even when he was getting 12 years. I guess there were quite a few of us against the initial $300M+ contract but I was one that was OK with the deal when it became a 6 year deal. I would take it back now but I would still be crazy enough to invest in SP while understanding why the FO is very reluctant.

Arraez was replaced by Julien which resulted in basically no loss of production. We also had Polanco short-term and Lee long-term. Who is replacing Jeffers that won't result in a significant drop in production not to mention we have no depth a catcher in general which makes it even more risky. Move Polanco and free up the payroll space to sign a significant free agent or trade Polanco plus others to Seattle for one of their young guys. If necessary, trade Polanco and one of Kepler / Farmer to provide payroll space but let's not trade away highly productive / low cost players with several years of control.

Does Seattle need to trade one of their top SPs to get a bat like Polanco or Kepler or both? Would we want our team to trade away a top SP so that we could get a prospect added to the deal. Of course not. They could get Polanco and Kepler or similar players from other teams for one of their less established pitchers so why would they trade any of their top arms? Anything is possible but it makes no sense for Seattle or any other team to trade away a top arm unless the return is Juan Soto.