Front Page: How Long is the Twins Championship Window?

[beckmt]

Cardinals as noted above are a good model, not always great, but always competitive.  I just hope they add the talent to put us over the top at the correct point.  But they seem to be off to a good start.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

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.

We as fans don’t have the tools to expand the definition of assets beyond free agent spending.

 

A number of posters quote trade analyzer websites and many posters disregard those sites as hogwash.

 

I agree with your concept that this FO values liquidity very highly and for good reason. What’s not clear to me is the liquidity risk model being used.

 

We talk about players as assets, but maybe better to be thought of as inventory. Turns as speed to commercialize inventory might be a metric/framework.

[bird]

 

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

 

 

This kind of statement makes me cringe a little, Mike. It's a not so subtle demonization, is it not? 

 

How is Boros spreading it around? Or Harper? Why not demonize them too while we're at it? 

I know quite a few people who are employed in the organization, in jobs ranging from the top of the hierarchy to greeters, and none of these people think they're any more "underpaid" than their pals up the freeway at Medtronic.

 

So who's being treated unfairly here? The players? The hundreds of gainfully employed people in the organization? 

 

I hate the greed myself, from owners, advertisers, players, agents...but also from fans fortunate enough to afford the occasional trip to the park and who scream for the cheap owners to give them what they want, and often think they deserve.

 

I'll save my venting on this subject to call for fair compensation to minor leaguers (don't expect the greedy players who have made it to give a hoot on the subject) and for reducing the whole wretched excess in the system to return the sport to a more inclusive cultural treasure. I look around the sport and can't find any real heroes these days.

[bird]

 

We as fans don’t have the tools to expand the definition of assets beyond free agent spending.

A number of posters quote trade analyzer websites and many posters disregard those sites as hogwash.

I agree with your concept that this FO values liquidity very highly and for good reason. What’s not clear to me is the liquidity risk model being used.

We talk about players as assets, but maybe better to be thought of as inventory. Turns as speed to commercialize inventory might be a metric/framework.

 

 

Yeah, I think the liquidity risk thing is manifested in aversion to years, not so much dollars, and it's predicated on the asset manager's view of the depreciation schedule for a given asset, an obvious guessing game. 

 

WHat's more unclear for me is whether FO's are beginning to deploy an "active management" model where they endeavor to turn inventory more rapidly than the competition is doing in an attempt to sell high. I was thinking last year's tepid demand in free agency might be telling us something, but maybe not.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Yeah, I think the liquidity risk thing is manifested in aversion to years, not so much dollars, and it's predicated on the asset manager's view of the depreciation schedule for a given asset, an obvious guessing game.

 

WHat's more unclear for me is whether FO's are beginning to deploy an "active management" model where they endeavor to turn inventory more rapidly than the competition is doing in an attempt to sell high. I was thinking last year's tepid demand in free agency might be telling us something, but maybe not.

I think the last couple soft markets were telling us something, we (and maybe Falvine too) were just wrong in interpretation.

 

Market corrections come in many different forms. It may be that several organizations had too much non-working inventory. Teams are looking to turn their inventory faster, or reprioritize different types of inventory

[David HK]

Not long.

Never as long as you think, especially with less $ than the yanks or dodgers.

It's open now, but we've already p*ssed away the chance to fill our #1 need.

Watch out for those white Sox, and I mean already this year, not the next ones to come.

[rdehring]

 

Yeah, I think the liquidity risk thing is manifested in aversion to years, not so much dollars, and it's predicated on the asset manager's view of the depreciation schedule for a given asset, an obvious guessing game. 

 

WHat's more unclear for me is whether FO's are beginning to deploy an "active management" model where they endeavor to turn inventory more rapidly than the competition is doing in an attempt to sell high. I was thinking last year's tepid demand in free agency might be telling us something, but maybe not.

The above comments really caused me to sit back and think about what you said.  Damn, that's about as mind awakening writing I have seen in awhile.  Thanks.