Front Page: How Long is the Twins Championship Window?

[jkcarew]

 

This just isn't correct. There is no magical "threshold" a team has to reach to make an upset possible. Straight-up mediocre teams have won the World Series, e.g., Giants in 2014, Cardinals, in 2006, etc., let alone all the teams that scored upsets for one or two rounds (e.g., 2012 Tigers beating the A's and Yankees to win ALCS). Heck, in 2019, the Nationals defeated clearly superior clubs in the NLDS and the World Series. 

The 2014 Giants? They were basically the same team that had already won two world series. Meanwhile, the 2006 Cardinals had to deal with only one team in the NL field that year that won even 90 games. The 2019 Twins were dominated by a team that was handled by a team, that was handled by another team. Not even in the universe of realistically winning anything of significance in the 2019 post-season. (Also, had a losing record against +500 teams.) The Twins need to get significantly better to have a realistic shot. "Get to the playoffs and anything can happen" might be a legitimate strategy for teams in two or three of the divisions in MLB...but it's been fools gold for the Twins. The Twins haven't been unlucky in every single playoff appearance since 2000. They haven't been good enough.

[USAFChief]

Yeah, I mean ideally the Twins would just be completely unbeatable, but there are constraints. For instance, the Yankees and Astros, among others, are well managed and have a lot more money than the Twins. So, structurally, the Twins start at a disadvantage.

 

The Twins biggest advantage under the current system is that they play in a division that is typically weak-to-mediocre.

 

What most posters, yourself included, refuse to accept, is that making the playoffs (particularly by winning the division) means a legitimate chance to advance in those playoffs. This is hugely important from a strategy perspective.

 

Even the worst division winner typically has around a 5% chance to win the World Series. So, for instance, if you want to trade future playoff appearances (e.g., by trading prospects and/or signing costly long-term deals with unproductive later years), you need to improve the current team by at least a roughly similar amount to what you're giving up in the future (unless for some reason the 2020 World Series is substantially more important than the 2021 World Series, but I don't see a logical reason for that).

 

If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 25% to win the World Series in a given season, that definitely would justify several years of future rebuilding. If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 10%, it definitely would not justify such a dramatic future cost.

 

If there was a plausible course of action the Twins could have taken to become the best team in the AL this off-season, I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see any possible series of moves that could have achieved such a goal.

among the problems I have with this...your numbers appear to be pulled from thin air.

 

Another, there is zero guarantee "not going for it" today means you'll be in the playoffs tomorrow. And going for it today, certainly doesn't mean you won't be good tomorrow.

 

For one thing, predicting baseball for the current season is difficult...trying to decide who will be good in 2022 is impossible.

 

For another, we know from their own statements the twins dont carry forward unused payroll. So not using money this year on a quality FA starter (a decision you scolded us for complaining about just last week) has little to no effect on future years. The money is gone.

[Mike Sixel]

 

among the problems I have with this...your numbers appear to be pulled from thin air.

Another, there is zero guarantee "not going for it" today means you'll be in the playoffs tomorrow. And going for it today, certainly doesn't mean you won't be good tomorrow.

For one thing, predicting baseball for the current season is difficult...trying to decide who will be good in 2022 is impossible.

For another, we know from their own statements the twins dont carry forward unused payroll. So not using money this year on a quality FA starter (a decision you scolded us for complaining about just last week) has little to no effect on future years. The money is gone.

 

The money isn't gone. It's in the owner's pockets. Not the players. Or the employees.

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

If we consider the 2001-2010 Twins as one window, it goes against that 5-year myth. Additionally, they successfully did that by making trades and shuffling the cards, so in this market, a long-term window (of contention at least) is more than possible. If that's a playoff window, what is a world series window? The Indians have been in a world series window with that great bullpen and rotation, and even though they've lost key pieces from those teams, their playoff contention window is still very open and likely is until they trade Lindor, plus they have the rotation to win in the playoffs, so I'd say even though they very well might be the 3rd best team in the division, they could still win a world series with their roster. Windows are subjective, require talent, involve risk, and require smart front office operations that are willing to spend, but be flexible. Give yourself the best chance to win now and give yourself enough of a future imo is the key to a good window. It's why I like where the Twins are now, but it is almost to the point of too comfortable

[drivlikejehu]

 

among the problems I have with this...your numbers appear to be pulled from thin air.

Another, there is zero guarantee "not going for it" today means you'll be in the playoffs tomorrow. And going for it today, certainly doesn't mean you won't be good tomorrow.

For one thing, predicting baseball for the current season is difficult...trying to decide who will be good in 2022 is impossible.

For another, we know from their own statements the twins dont carry forward unused payroll. So not using money this year on a quality FA starter (a decision you scolded us for complaining about just last week) has little to no effect on future years. The money is gone.

 

The approximate numbers are not out of thin air. MLB game probabilities are fairly straightforward to simulate (hence why it's near-impossible to beat Vegas on MLB games or props). 

 

But in this case, I was using them more for conceptual purposes . . . as opposed to using language that can be construed many ways (e.g., "decent chance" to you might be different than to me). So by an increase of 7.5% to 10%, I don't mean that I computed it, but that it's a relatively small increase. Having said that, FG did give the Twins a 7.5% chance to win the WS last year (at the beginning of the playoffs).

 

Obviously, there are no guarantees with anything. The Twins could assemble a 115-win roster and then have 10 guys get hurt. Every prospect could bust. It's all probabilities. But most people can't think that way or don't want to, because it's yucky math and not "baseball." But again, for fans, the math isn't really math so much as it is defining a concept for purposes of discussion or analysis.

 

MLB clubs have to make decisions based on probabilities. That's the nature of the sport and the business, for all 30 clubs. Maybe you don't agree and think that baseball clubs should be run based on general feelings or something else, but that's not reality, and there's a reason that things are the way they are. 

 

I'm not sure what your quality starter comment is in reference to - I advocated for signing Ryu for more money than he ultimately received - I've only opposed potential signings when I didn't think the player was good, and that it could prevent the acquisition of good players. 

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

Yeah, I mean ideally the Twins would just be completely unbeatable, but there are constraints. For instance, the Yankees and Astros, among others, are well managed and have a lot more money than the Twins. So, structurally, the Twins start at a disadvantage.

 

The Twins biggest advantage under the current system is that they play in a division that is typically weak-to-mediocre. 

 

What most posters, yourself included, refuse to accept, is that making the playoffs (particularly by winning the division) means a legitimate chance to advance in those playoffs. This is hugely important from a strategy perspective.

 

Even the worst division winner typically has around a 5% chance to win the World Series. So, for instance, if you want to trade future playoff appearances (e.g., by trading prospects and/or signing costly long-term deals with unproductive later years), you need to improve the current team by at least a roughly similar amount to what you're giving up in the future (unless for some reason the 2020 World Series is substantially more important than the 2021 World Series, but I don't see a logical reason for that).

 

If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 25% to win the World Series in a given season, that definitely would justify several years of future rebuilding. If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 10%, it definitely would not justify such a dramatic future cost.

 

If there was a plausible course of action the Twins could have taken to become the best team in the AL this off-season, I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see any possible series of moves that could have achieved such a goal. 

 

Agreed. I think the reason the Twins have not made that move is that it isn't there. Greinke had a no trade this past season that prevented him from coming here. Mad Bum, Wheeler, Cole, and Strasburg all chose comfort in their deals and it would've taken millions above their worth to get them. Ryu would've been good, but he still doesn't move the needle for me. Additionally, trading for David Price (or someone similar) puts you in a financial quandary that prevents you from making a move down the line. At best, those options give you a "chance" against Cole or Verlander, which doesn't guarantee you anything. If you're going to make the move, it has to be either:

 

1) Someone who guaranteed moves the needle upon acquiring them (Thor, DeGrom)

2) Someone who can be developed to move the needle (Robbie Ray, Chris Archer, Alacantara from Miami)

 

If you're telling me #1 is a pipe dream, I agree. The Mets are going to try to contend and have the only "guarantees" who could be traded. 

 

#2 is possible, but the problem is that fewer of these arms are available. The Diamondbacks will contend, the Pirates will "try" to contend, even the Marlins appear like they don't want to lose 100 games. The costs for these players will go up. I'm not saying don't pay, but we need to be cautious. 

 

I'm not against making the move, but it needs to level the playing field, not merely close the gap. 

 

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

among the problems I have with this...your numbers appear to be pulled from thin air.

Another, there is zero guarantee "not going for it" today means you'll be in the playoffs tomorrow. And going for it today, certainly doesn't mean you won't be good tomorrow.

For one thing, predicting baseball for the current season is difficult...trying to decide who will be good in 2022 is impossible.

For another, we know from their own statements the twins dont carry forward unused payroll. So not using money this year on a quality FA starter (a decision you scolded us for complaining about just last week) has little to no effect on future years. The money is gone.

 

The numbers don't matter here. It's not about tomorrow in the argument, it's about the playoffs. If you play the Yankees or Astros in game 1 of the ALDS and have Ryu or Mad Bum in game 1 vs. Cole or Verlander, who's going to win. Chances are if we play this scenario out 100 times, the Yankees and Astros will win more than 50% of the time. They have the better pitcher. This offseason for some seems to be about closing the gap. I don't care about closing the gap, I want to level the playing field, and in this case, I think the Twins chose waiting for the latter rather than having the former result in another quick playoff exit. Why pay $140 million to lose in the 1st round when you can do it for $110 million. Give me a realistic chance to level the playing field that the Twins pass up on trading for, drafting, or signing, then I will agree with this

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

I think the trick is to NOT be the underdog. To not need an upset.

That won't work all the time either, but I guarantee it'll work more often than the other way around.

They're always going to be the underdog in this scenario then. You can't beat the Yankees at spending and you won't ever be able to. It doesn't matter whether the Twins spend $200 million or $100 million. The way you're going to beat the Yankees is by making smart, calculated moves that level the playing field. Every move this offseason would've simply closed the gap. Cole and Verlander would've more than likely beat Mad Bum or Ryu in game 1. Go find me the next Verlander, Greinke, or Cole on the trade market and I'll buy in to acquiring them. That's how you beat the Yankees, you find someone with talent and stuff, and use Wes Johnson's magic to turn the table. How do I know this? It has happened before. Someone by the name of Johan Santana. How'd the Twins fare in his game one starts against the Yankees? They won both of them. Get me stuff, get me potential, get me a pitching coach's magic, and I'll be inclined to make a move.  

[Mike Sixel]

The approximate numbers are not out of thin air. MLB game probabilities are fairly straightforward to simulate (hence why it's near-impossible to beat Vegas on MLB games or props).

 

But in this case, I was using them more for conceptual purposes . . . as opposed to using language that can be construed many ways (e.g., "decent chance" to you might be different than to me). So by an increase of 7.5% to 10%, I don't mean that I computed it, but that it's a relatively small increase. Having said that, FG did give the Twins a 7.5% chance to win the WS last year (at the beginning of the playoffs).

 

Obviously, there are no guarantees with anything. The Twins could assemble a 115-win roster and then have 10 guys get hurt. Every prospect could bust. It's all probabilities. But most people can't think that way or don't want to, because it's yucky math and not "baseball." But again, for fans, the math isn't really math so much as it is defining a concept for purposes of discussion or analysis.

 

MLB clubs have to make decisions based on probabilities. That's the nature of the sport and the business, for all 30 clubs. Maybe you don't agree and think that baseball clubs should be run based on general feelings or something else, but that's not reality, and there's a reason that things are the way they are.

 

I'm not sure what your quality starter comment is in reference to - I advocated for signing Ryu for more money than he ultimately received - I've only opposed potential signings when I didn't think the player was good, and that it could prevent the acquisition of good players.

Chief literally posted adding good players increases your probability of success, so I don't get this rant.

[Mike Sixel]

The numbers don't matter here. It's not about tomorrow in the argument, it's about the playoffs. If you play the Yankees or Astros in game 1 of the ALDS and have Ryu or Mad Bum in game 1 vs. Cole or Verlander, who's going to win. Chances are if we play this scenario out 100 times, the Yankees and Astros will win more than 50% of the time. They have the better pitcher. This offseason for some seems to be about closing the gap. I don't care about closing the gap, I want to level the playing field, and in this case, I think the Twins chose waiting for the latter rather than having the former result in another quick playoff exit. Why pay $140 million to lose in the 1st round when you can do it for $110 million. Give me a realistic chance to level the playing field that the Twins pass up on trading for, drafting, or signing, then I will agree with this

And how do you propose closing the gap next year, when Cruz is gone, and there are less free agent pitchers? Just keep waiting for the exact perfect moment?

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

First, tremendous OP, Nick. I especially liked the O'dowd comments because they are real. Kudos.

The one comment, in all sports, that has always frustrated and confounded me is "This team is built for the playoffs". (I shake my head again just thinking about it). It is the worst case of hyperbole. It's as if someone assembled a team/roster and SOMEHOW the regular season should be skipped and we should somehow skip said regular season and just assemble a collection of teams based on paper and fantasy projection and just jump so some playoff scenario to decide the champion.

It doesn't work that way. If it did, the Twins would have been virtually excluded in 1987. The Patriots would have just been handed the Lombardi trophy a few years back instead of having to actually PLAY, and lose to the Giants simply because they were the "best team assembled".

While some want to scream "cheap" about "financial flexibility" as though it were an ugly 4 letter or hyphenated word, it is not. In MLB, we are seeing teams, and have seen glimpses previously, now looking to shed excessive payroll they themselves created. Take Boston as an example.

Am I off topic or digressing? Not at all.

The Twins window opened up in 2019 through a variety of factors, mostly due to health and progression of the core in place, along with a few smart additions. And yet, for various reasons, there remains room for INTERNAL improvement, based on experience/development and in some cases, health. Unless suddenly traded in mass, there is a collection of top prospects nearly ready to add and replace losses over the next year or so. This, even allowing for the loss of current players/prospects.

You trade Rosario, Larnach is close to replacing him. Or Kirilloff does with Raley or Rooker taking over or sliding in to 1B. Lewis, untradedm could be at 3B/SS/CF. The point isn't horde prospects, but just don't dump them all so that you have options.

We simply will not be able to keep and re-sign everyone. Trades will happen for various reasons. Some prospects will flame out. Others will surprise. Some trades will pan out, others will not. But additions and development will be key over time. The best run franchises with any sort of "sustainability" prove that to be true. As the Twins are constructed, RIGHT NOW, from the ML roster on down, knowing there will be losses here and there, I would say there is a legitimate window of 3 to 4 years. That's the best I can give because there are just too many factors in place.

Example: we keep Berrios but lose Sano and Buxton. They are replaced Lewis and Javier.

Give me the best, most competitive, versatile team you can put together every season for a shot, and I'll take that.

 

This to me is the reality of Minnesota Twins baseball.   

 

Compete for the division every year and fill up the park is the business goal.  

 

I wish there was more willingness to take some measured risks that might result in competitive October baseball.  That could have happened last July, and is what us faithful are hoping for this offseason.

 

What's a "measured risk" in your scenario? Is buying Cueto and Zobrist while selling the farm for the Royals in 2015 measured? Is the Cubs trade for Chapman in 2016 measured? Is Andrew Miller going to Cleveland in 2016 measured? I think we need to come together to figure out how risk averse we are. I'd say those last two could easily be done by this team. They have enough prospects to make those deals happen easily while also be able to field a team four years down the line. 

[Mike Sixel]

What's a "measured risk" in your scenario? Is buying Cueto and Zobrist while selling the farm for the Royals in 2015 measured? Is the Cubs trade for Chapman in 2016 measured? Is Andrew Miller going to Cleveland in 2016 measured? I think we need to come together to figure out how risk averse we are. I'd say those last two could easily be done by this team. They have enough prospects to make those deals happen easily while also be able to field a team four years down the line.

The Royals didn't sell the farm. One guy they traded turned out to be good, maybe two.

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

And how do you propose closing the gap next year, when Cruz is gone, and there are less free agent pitchers? Just keep waiting for the exact perfect moment?

 

Again, it's not about closing the gap! I could care less about the gap. It's about making a move that levels the playing field. As much as you would like to think so, Wheeler, Mad Bum, or Ryu DON'T wouldn't have done that and I'm tired of people thinking that those guys would've done so. Would I like to have one of those 3? Absolutely! But I'm not overpaying for a "chance" to beat the Yankees, I'll overpay if I get someone (DeGrom, Thor) who CAN FOR SURE beat the Yankees. If I were GM, I wouldn't be on the phone with the Mets right now because one of those two would already be in a Twins jersey. It's not that I don't want to see a World Series winner, it's more I question what value our options that are off the board would've have been. Don't give me a chance against the Yankees, give me a guarantee that you can beat the Yankees.

[Mike Sixel]

Again, it's not about closing the gap! I could care less about the gap. It's about making a move that levels the playing field. As much as you would like to think so, Wheeler, Mad Bum, or Ryu DON'T wouldn't have done that and I'm tired of people thinking that those guys would've done so. Would I like to have one of those 3? Absolutely! But I'm not overpaying for a "chance" to beat the Yankees, I'll overpay if I get someone (DeGrom, Thor) who CAN FOR SURE beat the Yankees. If I were GM, I wouldn't be on the phone with the Mets right now because one of those two would already be in a Twins jersey. It's not that I don't want to see a World Series winner, it's more I question what value our options that are off the board would've have been. Don't give me a chance against the Yankees, give me a guarantee that you can beat the Yankees.

Fine, how do you pass them next year? Which was clearly the question. And, there are no guarantees.

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

The Royals didn't sell the farm. One guy they traded turned out to be good, maybe two.

 

Doesn't matter, they traded the good value they had and are consistently losing 90 games for the next few years. They had a barren farm system and depleted it more. I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of watching 90 loss teams. The Cardinals are an organization that has proved time and time again that you can spend, you can trade, and you can develop new generations of talents without rebuilding. They've done it pretty successfully too. Give me that model. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Doesn't matter

 

I agree with you about favoring the Cardinals model, but I respectfully disagree that it doesn’t matter how we talk about these things, as I think phrases like “sell the farm” and “mortgage the future” shows an unwillingness to even allow the conversation. Otherwise, I get it. Prospects are cool and I want them to do well too, and they are the most important ingredient to sustained success (but not the only ingredient). I would also like the front office to take a chance and make some bets on them, maybe trade one or two of the best ones while leaving the rest of the system intact, like other successful organizations do every year. Cheers!

[Mike Sixel]

Doesn't matter, they traded the good value they had and are consistently losing 90 games for the next few years. They had a barren farm system and depleted it more. I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of watching 90 loss teams. The Cardinals are an organization that has proved time and time again that you can spend, you can trade, and you can develop new generations of talents without rebuilding. They've done it pretty successfully too. Give me that model.

No one is disagreeing, bit that had nothing to do with the Royals trades.

 

I'd love it if the Twins traded good prospects for great players and then signed them to long extensions. If they drafted and developed pitchers.

[whatyouknowtwinsfan]

 

I agree with you about favoring the Cardinals model, but I respectfully disagree that it doesn’t matter how we talk about these things, as I think phrases like “sell the farm” and “mortgage the future” shows an unwillingness to even allow the conversation. Otherwise, I get it. Prospects are cool and I want them to do well too, and they are the most important ingredient to sustained success (but not the only ingredient). I would also like the front office to take a chance and make some bets on them, maybe trade one or two of the best ones while leaving the rest of the system intact, like other successful organizations do every year. Cheers!

 

My wording probably wasn't the best. In the Royals case, they took a bad farm system and made it worse. With our farm system, I'm absolutely willing to trade some of our guys, but I don't want it to be repetitive in trying to find "the guy." I'd rather trade for a "stud" and give up a few more prospects then repeatedly trade the farm for a stopgap. That's what got the Wild in trouble to the point where they had no draft picks and the ones they had have come up short on expectations. Let's avoid that when making trades, otherwise I'm all for it if it moves the needle significantly. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Chief literally posted adding good players increases your probability of success, so I don't get this rant.

 

I get this comment even less. If you can't follow what I say, don't read it I guess. It seemed pretty clear to me.

[Mike Sixel]

I get this comment even less. If you can't follow what I say, don't read it I guess. It seemed pretty clear to me.

Your post said fans don't get probabilities.... Did it not?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

My wording probably wasn't the best. In the Royals case, they took a bad farm system and made it worse. With our farm system, I'm absolutely willing to trade some of our guys, but I don't want it to be repetitive in trying to find "the guy." I'd rather trade for a "stud" and give up a few more prospects then repeatedly trade the farm for a stopgap. That's what got the Wild in trouble to the point where they had no draft picks and the ones they had have come up short on expectations. Let's avoid that when making trades, otherwise I'm all for it if it moves the needle significantly.

 

Sounds good. However even in the Royals case, it wasn’t really trading prospects or signing outrageous free agent contracts for an “all-in” situation. They won 86 games in 2013, the season before their two-year reign atop the AL, and caught some unlucky breaks in 2016 and after. Even so, a Royals fan posted here recently that winning it all in 2015 would have been worth it either way

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/35929-front-page-the-royals-problem-just-how-much-are-you-willing-to-give-up-to-win-a-world-series/?p=945663

[Craig Arko]

Unless you’re thinking of repeats, I suppose the window is the single year that a championship is won.

 

No idea what year that might be. This is why the games are played out, and not simply simulated. 

[USAFChief]

Sounds good. However even in the Royals case, it wasn’t really trading prospects or signing outrageous free agent contracts for an “all-in” situation. They won 86 games in 2013, the season before their two-year reign atop the AL, and caught some unlucky breaks in 2016 and after. Even so, a Royals fan posted here recently that winning it all in 2015 would have been worth it either way

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/35929-front-page-the-royals-problem-just-how-much-are-you-willing-to-give-up-to-win-a-world-series/?p=945663

not to mention, it seems to me if the Royals took "a bad farm system and made it worse", at the cost of winning a WS, that's a pretty neat trick.

 

What good would it have done them to keep "a bad farm system" intact?

[Mike Sixel]

I'd suggest they win one playoff game before we talk about "championship" windows. But that's just me. YMMV, of course.

[bird]

 

I will disagree with you here. (Because of course I will, right!?)

There was a plausible offer from the Mets last July of Buxton for Syndergaard. Kepler could have filled in in CF just fine for the remainder of 2019, probably beyond.

Granted it’s unknowable to us if the ask for Buxton was negotiating point that the Mets could have been talked down from, or on the other side, of the ask for Buxton was more of a message like “go away, we ain’t trading Syndergaard” in response to rumors. The middle road here is to assume that Buxton-for-Syndergaard was legitimate. And Buxton (at least at that time) was a valuable asset. The same can’t be said for Jake Cave.

The wild card here of course is disrupting the chemistry of the team like that in the middle of the race; Buxton and Kepler appear to be close teammates, to boot. But surely the front office under your scenario could still trade Buxton or Kepler this offseason—if it is “extremely valuable MLB assets” we are conditioning this on.

 

 

Two reasons I disagree, Mr. Disco. Both reasons equate to such a trade not being an opportunity, but instead a possible disaster, if two assumptions are correct. One, Buxton has a chance to impact the team's performance more than Syndergaard, and for a longer period of time. Two, Buxton is NOT redundant by any stretch of the imagination. You'd be creating a massive deficit in favor of partially filling another one.

 

Unfortunately, Cave and Rosario represent the most glaring surplus area. Perhaps, by the deadline, We'll have a couple of AAA guys champing at the bit and can move someone like Duffey for a Dyson-like return.

All three of the prospects we gave up in that trade get 40FV or better from FanGraphs, which puts them up there with Javier, Wallner, Canterino, Urbina. I want my team on the other side of that kind of trade due to having smartly built a surplus.

 

But yes, I want Polanco on the market if Lewis can step in and match his production pretty much immediately. Polanco is just an example here. He's valuable. He's liquid because he's attached to a reasonable contract in years and AAV. But only IF trading him doesn't fill one hole and create another.

[bird]

 

great..

Except the moment the Twins "dance on the graves" of these unfortunate teams, their own "financial flexibility" disappears. Not to mention, you're operating in theoretical territory here, since the Twins have never, not once, danced on anyone's grave by taking on significant salary.

Your entire argument boils down to "the Twins will win by spending significantly less than they could/should."

Less than they've stated they will.

My opinion..."financial flexibility" is another term for lining the Pohlad's pockets. We already know, by their own statements, they don't carry excess payroll capacity forward from one season to the next. So try again...what does this "financial flexibility" actually accomplish, besides limiting payroll?

 

 

 

I concede that I'm suggesting a paradigm shift and have a dang good chance of operating on a false hunch about Falvey.

 

I reject the "never once" argument as some sort of claim on future decisions by a new and very decidedly different regime. I may be wrong, but I believe that Falvey has the authority and the will to take on salary and reduce free cash, or to trade from the minors and reduce prospect capital if he deems it to be a prudent move. But he's not going to let either his talent pipeline OR his dry powder run down to nothing like Boston just did. That's not how he intends to skin the cat, IMO.

 

But yes, they probably are going to continue to disappoint when it comes to taking on long-term contracts and salary, but it's because of their recognition of what creates graves worthy of dances.

 

My entire argument boils down to the Twins positioning themselves as having asset value and using it wisely, whether that is roster players, prospects, or cash. Spending isn't even the main strategic weapon. In arguments on TD, spending seems to often be the ONLY measurement of anything.

 

Again, having flexibility and USING it, as I have suggested? I see the possibility of sustained competitiveness with very short and very shallow cycles. Having flexibility and NOT using it? I agree. That lines the company coffers.

 

I share your complaint about not putting "unspent" salary budget into "retained earnings" with the intention of splurging when the right opportunity presents itself. I differ with you, I think, in my trust that there is a crossing point of the lines where the spending converts to an investment that delivers both wins and financial rewards. I don't care about Pohlad's pockets one way or another, but I also don't believe we as fans are quite as entitled to more as we sometimes think we are. But that's going to be a point of difference here, we know that.

[USAFChief]

I concede that I'm suggesting a paradigm shift and have a dang good chance of operating on a false hunch about Falvey.

 

I reject the "never once" argument as some sort of claim on future decisions by a new and very decidedly different regime. I may be wrong, but I believe that Falvey has the authority and the will to take on salary and reduce free cash, or to trade from the minors and reduce prospect capital if he deems it to be a prudent move. But he's not going to let either his talent pipeline OR his dry powder run down to nothing like Boston just did. That's not how he intends to skin the cat, IMO.

 

But yes, they probably are going to continue to disappoint when it comes to taking on long-term contracts and salary, but it's because of their recognition of what creates graves worthy of dances.

 

My entire argument boils down to the Twins positioning themselves as having asset value and using it wisely, whether that is roster players, prospects, or cash. Spending isn't even the main strategic weapon. In arguments on TD, spending seems to often be the ONLY measurement of anything.

 

Again, having flexibility and USING it, as I have suggested? I see the possibility of sustained competitiveness with very short and very shallow cycles. Having flexibility and NOT using it? I agree. That lines the company coffers.

 

I share your complaint about not putting "unspent" salary budget into "retained earnings" with the intention of splurging when the right opportunity presents itself. I differ with you, I think, in my trust that there is a crossing point of the lines where the spending converts to an investment that delivers both wins and financial rewards. I don't care about Pohlad's pockets one way or another, but I also don't believe we as fans are quite as entitled to more as we sometimes think we are. But that's going to be a point of difference here, we know that.

fantastic post.

 

I hope you're right and I'm just grumpy.

[bird]

 

If you don't use the money, what is financial flexibility for? 

 

For years, people here told me that I shouldn't judge the Twins' draft picks in the 20s harshly, because I shouldn't expect much. That it wasn't really possible for a mid market team to have sustained success, that it went in cycles.

 

Now? I'm supposed to believe that I was right, that a team good at drafting and trading and developing can have sustained success?

 

Which is it?

 

 

Your first is an excellent question, Mike. My view is that, unused, fexibility of choice is useless, Failing to invest cash in talent ( PRUDENTLY, mind you! ) lines Pohlad's pockets. Failing to horse trade major league assets when values are peaking ( a catastrophic failing of the last regime) stifles any chance at separation. Feeding the big club with better alternatives so that the turnover makes sense? Imperative to sustainable excellence.

 

You're conflating things otherwise, I think. Don't confuse talent evaluation prowess with skills development prowess, a distinct problem Falvey is hopefully correcting. Everyone should go back and read Parker Hageman's article from last spring about what's going on in the system in that area. (some should shudder at their cynical take on it, but that's another matter).

 

Things have changed a great deal just in the past couple of years, Mike. All teams have decent talent evaluation capacity, although there still are a few ways to find an edge (IFA presence, active scouting). A window exists to be better at development than other orgs, which is why the Twins lost innovators of huge importance like Tanner Swanson and Fatse. That window will close, just like being better at drafting closed many years ago now.

 

So that leaves a couple of options. One, being a better horse trader. Two being a better opportunist in the face of things like financial stress or urgency (trade deadline yearnings).

 

Which is it? Actually, the question is WHAT is it. I believe the answer is superior and active asset management of three key non-intellectual assets: free cash, liquid player talent, and prospect capital, which appreciates more predictably when developed well.

[bird]

 

fantastic post.

I hope you're right and I'm just grumpy.

 

 

After the Homer Odyssey and Dick Hill? Who isn't a bit grumpy? 

[The Wise One]

 

The Royals didn't sell the farm. One guy they traded turned out to be good, maybe two.

Which one was the goof player, Odorizzi, Meyers, Manaea?