A case against signing the top free agents

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

The OP was about how the Twins shouldn’t go after high end free agents.

I disagree with that.

Tampa, Oakland they found ways to compete differently than other teams. It works for them.

If the Twins are going after free agents, should they actively seek marginal players? Or should they reduce the scope of the search and seek fewer but higher impact? I vote the latter. Are there many examples in the same financial bracket as the Twins? No. Should that be a factor? No

Oakland and Tampa found competitive advantage by not copying everyone else. Falvine should also not copy everyone else and chart their own path.

I agree if the OP meant ever.  I guess I should have said almost none of us and there is a case this is not the year.  Let's also acknowledge all of the case studies because the collective provides insight.  Have the Mets, Angels, and Phillies all failed when putting an emphasis on free agents and trading for establish players.  

Have the Rays and A's both thrived using the opposite approach suggested by many here.  Did the Royals win a WS with a team primarily comprised of home grown players and two players acquired by trading a way Grienke?

Did the Braves just win the WS and is the team primarily comprised of homegrown players and players received by trading established players for prospects?

Seems that a lot of very tangible examples are ignored if they don't support signing big free agents or trading away prospects.  We completely ignore that the teams in the playoffs and/or contending are far more influenced by players obtained by trading away established players vs the other way around.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

I agree if the OP meant ever.  I guess I should have said almost none of us and there is a case this is not the year.  Let's also acknowledge all of the case studies because the collective provides insight.  Have the Mets, Angels, and Phillies all failed when putting an emphasis on free agents and trading for establish players.  

Have the Rays and A's both thrived using the opposite approach suggested by many here.  Did the Royals win a WS with a team primarily comprised of home grown players and two players acquired by trading a way Grienke?

Did the Braves just win the WS and is the team primarily comprised of homegrown players and players received by trading established players for prospects?

Seems that a lot of very tangible examples are ignored if they don't support signing big free agents or trading away prospects.  We completely ignore that the teams in the playoffs and/or contending are far more influenced by players obtained by trading away established players vs the other way around.

Have the Dodgers and Cubs won with free agents?

How did the White Sox do this year?

There are case studies on both sides (if you are going to include the big market teams too, like the Mets and Phillies). 

There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY, other than be better at identifying and developing players (draft, trade, FA).

Everyone pointing out the Twins should be like the Rays (no other team has succeeded using their model, though many have tried) must want the Twins to deal Buxton right now.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Have the Dodgers and Cubs won with free agents?

How did the White Sox do this year?

There are case studies on both sides (if you are going to include the big market teams too, like the Mets and Phillies). 

There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY, other than be better at identifying and developing players (draft, trade, FA).

Everyone pointing out the Twins should be like the Rays (no other team has succeeded using their model, though many have tried) must want the Twins to deal Buxton right now.

Exactly. Success isn’t from doing a type transaction or not. It’s from doing all of the transactions better than your competitors. Better decisions create opportunities for better results.

if the question isn’t “ever” and is “not this year” I would counter: they have Donaldson, Buxton, Polanco, Arraez and Garver in their lineup who are excellent if not elite hitters and Kirilloff could be quickly… with 60-70 million to spend if they wanted to. If not now, when? When will they ever have this opportunity again?

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Have the Dodgers and Cubs won with free agents?

How did the White Sox do this year?

There are case studies on both sides (if you are going to include the big market teams too, like the Mets and Phillies). 

There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY, other than be better at identifying and developing players (draft, trade, FA).

Everyone pointing out the Twins should be like the Rays (no other team has succeeded using their model, though many have tried) must want the Twins to deal Buxton right now.

How is it relevant that the Cubs and Dodgers won with free agents?  Name a team with equivalent revenue.  The whole bloody point is that these teams have financial resources the twins do not.  How is it possibly surprising that these teams outbid lesser revenue teams and augment their roster in this way.   

The White Sox lost in the first round which is a perennial bitch around here.  

As predicted you also completely ignored the question I posed to you as to how it would make any difference if teams operated at break-even.  That's the norm here just ignore anything you don't want to acknowledge and continue to bitch about it.  So, show me what I don't understand.  alternatively, acknowledge that you simply did not understand that the owners making a profit has nothing to do with Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or their spending relative to other teams. You have plenty of energy to complain so expend a little acknowledging the error.

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How is it relevant that the Cubs and Dodgers won with free agents?  Name a team with equivalent revenue.  The whole bloody point is that these teams have financial resources the twins do not.  How is it possibly surprising that these teams outbid lesser revenue teams and augment their roster in this way.   

The White Sox lost in the first round which is a perennial bitch around here.  

As predicted you also completely ignored the question I posed to you as to how it would make any difference if teams operated at break-even.  That's the norm here just ignore anything you don't want to acknowledge and continue to bitch about it.  So, show me what I don't understand.  alternatively, acknowledge that you simply did not understand that the owners making a profit has nothing to do with Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or their spending relative to other teams. You have plenty of energy to complain so expend a little acknowledging the error.

You brought up the Mets and Phillies.......high priced teams, not me. If they aren't fair game for this discussion, I'm ok with that. I've never argued that the playing field was even, or that the Twins should be the biggest spenders. It is a straw man, when arguing with me.

Speaking of ignoring things:

KC has zero (might be 1, but I don't think so....but zero playoff appearances) winning seasons since 2015.,,,,,is that really the process the TWins should follow? I can't see KC in the playoffs next year either. So, that's at least 7 years now without even a good team.

Plenty of teams follow the "no real FA" path, and don't win. Only pointing out the successful ones is a bit one sided. 

what error did I make? I've never argued they shouldn't make money. I've never argued they can compete on spending with the highest revenue teams. I've never argued they can compete for a team with a lot of expensive FAs. I've never said they should be the like Tampa, while also arguing they should keep Buxton. 

[Major League Ready]

39 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

You brought up the Mets and Phillies.......high priced teams, not me. If they aren't fair game for this discussion, I'm ok with that. I've never argued that the playing field was even, or that the Twins should be the biggest spenders. It is a straw man, when arguing with me.

Speaking of ignoring things:

KC has zero (might be 1, but I don't think so....but zero playoff appearances) winning seasons since 2015.,,,,,is that really the process the TWins should follow? I can't see KC in the playoffs next year either. So, that's at least 7 years now without even a good team.

Plenty of teams follow the "no real FA" path, and don't win. Only pointing out the successful ones is a bit one sided. 

what error did I make? I've never argued they shouldn't make money. I've never argued they can compete on spending with the highest revenue teams. I've never argued they can compete for a team with a lot of expensive FAs. I've never said they should be the like Tampa, while also arguing they should keep Buxton. 

 

I agree with you completely on KC.  They have not been a model to follow but someone would have said what about KC had I not included them.  That would understandable given they did win a WS even if you and I don't think they are a good model.  So, this is the opposite of ignoring evidence.  I was including them to be fair but adding that I would not want to follow them would have put it in perspective.  For the record, I have said that more than once on this site an got flack because they won the big one.  Actually, I have said pretty much exactly what you said here.  I even listed the number of 90 loss seasons they have had.

I included the Met and Phillies because they have failed even with considerably more financial resource.  I can see not even discussing them given the twins can't spend with them but more info is generally better as long as we understand the relative probative value.  I would add that the Cubs were heavily influenced by home grown players and then they did what high revenue teams should do when they get a homegrown core ... use their financial resource to their advantage.

Of course some teams failed.  That is an absolutely certainty and if we want to study how to fail they would be relevant.  We want to know how to succeed.  Is it at all reasonable to expect that every team would succeed if they followed certain practices.  It does not change in the slightest bit the fact that the teams with modest revenue that have succeeded have followed certain practices and those practices are not consistent with what you and others are asking to be done.  The fact is that trading for prospects has had a greater impact on building winners among lower revenue teams and there are no examples of low revenue teams winning as a result of signing elite free agents.

The error is that you have repeated several times that the desire to make a profit impacts the Twins ability to compete for free agents.  This is patently false.  The revenue disadvantage would actually increase for low revenue teams because high revenue teams make more profit.  Therefore, eliminating profit would increase the financial disparity between low and high revenue teams.  You are certainly not the only person to harp on this "problem".  So, one more time, do you still think that the Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or compete in general would change even slightly if MLB tams were willing to operate at break-even? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

21 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

One team. That no other team can replicate.....But sure, they would 100% trade Buxton. Is that what you want?

That's one team. One. No one else in baseball has been able to replicate their success. If that's your goal, good luck.

On top of whether that success is repeatable, there's a better than 50% chance I would no longer watch baseball if I was a Rays fan. I have very little interest in cheering on laundry as ownership puts roughly the same amount into payroll that they RECEIVE FROM MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.

I've come to openly dislike the Rays. Who here knew their TV contract was slightly more than what the Twins receive? Or that their entire payroll is covered by what MLB gives them through national TV revenue, profit sharing, and competitive balance subsidies?

Eff the Rays, frankly,.

[dxpavelka]

On 11/11/2021 at 8:09 PM, Sconnie said:

I disagree with the idea that the Pohlads and Twins can’t or shouldn’t spend on free agency.

I understand that they’ll never be big spenders, but they have the ability to sign more players in the same vein as Donaldson. I don’t think they will… but they can and should. Winning teams get better revenue and better TV contracts. Success breeds success, and no team has a perpetual development pipeline (except the Rays) and trades and free agents must be used to fill gaps.

The Pohlads have always been willing to spend responsibly to keep their own players.  Folks forget that prior to moving Johan Santana they gave him a reasonable extension.  They even made very good offer before trading him.  The Mets would have been wise to have paid him what the Twins had offered rather  than what they eventually paid him.  The one time the Twins overpaid, for Joe Mauer, the fans eventually crucified them. 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

3 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

The Pohlads have always been willing to spend responsibly to keep their own players.  Folks forget that prior to moving Johan Santana they gave him a reasonable extension.  They even made very good offer before trading him.  The Mets would have been wise to have paid him what the Twins had offered rather  than what they eventually paid him.  The one time the Twins overpaid, for Joe Mauer, the fans eventually crucified them. 

 

I agree, the Twins have signed significant contracts in the past, including Mauer and Donaldson. Im convinced ownership hires cheap GMs to keep the escalations on contracts to a minimum.

I disagree that Mauer’s contract hampered spending. The Twins could have supplemented the M&M core in those years, they chose not to. As we learned from Atlanta this year, those supplements can carry a team over the edge.

[Rosterman]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:22 AM, MABB1959 said:

I don't see much outrage over losing Liam Hendricks the reliever of the year.  Would this new FO have seen the potential?   

It became arbitration, service time et al. If the Twins ahd switched him to the bullpen, who knows. But Liam wasn't a gem every year after he left the Twins.

[dxpavelka]

5 hours ago, Sconnie said:

I agree, the Twins have signed significant contracts in the past, including Mauer and Donaldson. Im convinced ownership hires cheap GMs to keep the escalations on contracts to a minimum.

I disagree that Mauer’s contract hampered spending. The Twins could have supplemented the M&M core in those years, they chose not to. As we learned from Atlanta this year, those supplements can carry a team over the edge.

I don't think the Mauer signing hampered spending.  Actually, what we learned from Atlanta was that those supplements don't have to be big dollar signings they just have to be the RIGHT signings.  Almost every team does what we did this past year.  At the end of the year, only one of them gets it right.

[jorgenswest]

I don’t think this is the year to sign a top free agent. They should expect any top free agent to put up their best year in their first year with the Twins. The team is not close enough to make that commitment this year. 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I don’t think this is the year to sign a top free agent. They should expect any top free agent to put up their best year in their first year with the Twins. The team is not close enough to make that commitment this year. 

A couple years ago I posted the WARs for pitchers who had signed 5+ year deals going back several years.   You are correct, the 1st year was considerably better than the rest.  When the 1st year was removed the aggregate production was extremely poor.  The very elite (Scherzer types) have a much better history than the next rung down.  There have been train wrecks  like Cueto / Sanchez / Zimmerman among the next tier.

[Prince William]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

A couple years ago I posted the WARs for pitchers who had signed 5+ year deals going back several years.   You are correct, the 1st year was considerably better than the rest.  When the 1st year was removed the aggregate production was extremely poor.  The very elite (Scherzer types) have a much better history than the next rung down.  There have been train wrecks  like Cueto / Sanchez / Zimmerman among the next tier.

By those measures it was better to trade Berrios than to sign him.  Have you done any poking around on oft injured center fielders?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

12 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I don’t think this is the year to sign a top free agent. They should expect any top free agent to put up their best year in their first year with the Twins. The team is not close enough to make that commitment this year. 

If not now, when? Next year is surely blow it up year, as Buxton is gone, Polanco and Kepler would be in their last years, Sano would not have that option picked up, Garver’s in his last year of Arb and the FO wouldn’t have spent any money on pitching. Arraez, Kirilloff and the husk of Donaldson are not much to build around. 
 

this is the go-for-it year with this core.

[USAFChief]

10 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

If not now, when? Next year is surely blow it up year, as Buxton is gone, Polanco and Kepler would be in their last years, Sano would not have that option picked up, Garver’s in his last year of Arb and the FO wouldn’t have spent any money on pitching. Arraez, Kirilloff and the husk of Donaldson are not much to build around. 
 

this is the go-for-it year with this core.

You sign free agents when they are needed AND WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE. 

 

"Wait till you're good to sign free agents" is incredibly shortsighted. You can't just order up a good SS and two top starters from Walmart and pick them up on the way to spring training.

[Major League Ready]

9 hours ago, Prince William said:

By those measures it was better to trade Berrios than to sign him.  Have you done any poking around on oft injured center fielders?

What has little to do with the other.  The post I responded to suggested the 1st year of a free agent SPs contract was most likely the best.  I looked into this theory a couple years ago and recorded the facts which support the post I responded to.  Trading Berrios given his desire to hit the free market is a different issue.

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

You sign free agents when they are needed AND WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE. 

 

"Wait till you're good to sign free agents" is incredibly shortsighted. You can't just order up a good SS and two top starters from Walmart and pick them up on the way to spring training.

Maybe if you are one of the top 5 revenue teams.  They can sign a half-dozen top FAs and have the budgetr of smaller teams left over.  I say maybe because that practice has proven relatively ineffective.  How about the last couple of years Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Baltimore and Arizona should have been playing free agents or developing prospects?  How about Seattle who has now build a nice core and now that they are ready has the budget flexibility to supplement their roster.  Should they have been playing free agents instead of dedicating their roster spots to developing players?

[KirbyDome89]

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

A couple years ago I posted the WARs for pitchers who had signed 5+ year deals going back several years.   You are correct, the 1st year was considerably better than the rest.  When the 1st year was removed the aggregate production was extremely poor.  The very elite (Scherzer types) have a much better history than the next rung down.  There have been train wrecks  like Cueto / Sanchez / Zimmerman among the next tier.

Early years are expected to be the best. That's what teams are buying in FA. Should we be shocked that removing prime production years from the aggregate doesn't yield desirable results? 

[Mike Sixel]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:44 PM, Major League Ready said:

 

I agree with you completely on KC.  They have not been a model to follow but someone would have said what about KC had I not included them.  That would understandable given they did win a WS even if you and I don't think they are a good model.  So, this is the opposite of ignoring evidence.  I was including them to be fair but adding that I would not want to follow them would have put it in perspective.  For the record, I have said that more than once on this site an got flack because they won the big one.  Actually, I have said pretty much exactly what you said here.  I even listed the number of 90 loss seasons they have had.

I included the Met and Phillies because they have failed even with considerably more financial resource.  I can see not even discussing them given the twins can't spend with them but more info is generally better as long as we understand the relative probative value.  I would add that the Cubs were heavily influenced by home grown players and then they did what high revenue teams should do when they get a homegrown core ... use their financial resource to their advantage.

Of course some teams failed.  That is an absolutely certainty and if we want to study how to fail they would be relevant.  We want to know how to succeed.  Is it at all reasonable to expect that every team would succeed if they followed certain practices.  It does not change in the slightest bit the fact that the teams with modest revenue that have succeeded have followed certain practices and those practices are not consistent with what you and others are asking to be done.  The fact is that trading for prospects has had a greater impact on building winners among lower revenue teams and there are no examples of low revenue teams winning as a result of signing elite free agents.

The error is that you have repeated several times that the desire to make a profit impacts the Twins ability to compete for free agents.  This is patently false.  The revenue disadvantage would actually increase for low revenue teams because high revenue teams make more profit.  Therefore, eliminating profit would increase the financial disparity between low and high revenue teams.  You are certainly not the only person to harp on this "problem".  So, one more time, do you still think that the Twins relative ability to compete for free agents or compete in general would change even slightly if MLB tams were willing to operate at break-even? 

The Twins and Twins alone decide how much profit they want to make. What other teams decide has no bearing on that. The Twins could decide to make less, while CLE and Tampa keep their models in place. Just because the Twins decide to make less does not mean others will follow. Indeed, I'd argue they wouldn't. Otherwise they already would have. I'm also not arguing the Twins SHOULD do that. I'm stating they can if they want. 

So, your question is not really valid, imo. If every team decided to operate the same way, well, IMO, they never will....so I'm not sure why I'd answer that. But sure, their relative ability to compete based on money alone would not likely change at all. It may even go down. But then, I'm not arguing every team should (or even that the Twins should) operate the same way. Indeed, if all you are doing is trying to be like everyone else, you are falling behind, because others will innovate. 

So, I answered your question. I'm not sure where that gets us, other than where we already were. We agree the Twins won't decided to break even. That they can't be expected to compete with the highest revenue teams on payroll (which I've said over and over). We agree the key to success is being better at identifying talent, developing talent, and getting rid of it at the right time. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

The Twins and Twins alone decide how much profit they want to make. What other teams decide has no bearing on that. The Twins could decide to make less, while CLE and Tampa keep their models in place. Just because the Twins decide to make less does not mean others will follow. Indeed, I'd argue they wouldn't. Otherwise they already would have. I'm also not arguing the Twins SHOULD do that. I'm stating they can if they want. 

So, your question is not really valid, imo. If every team decided to operate the same way, well, IMO, they never will....so I'm not sure why I'd answer that. But sure, their relative ability to compete based on money alone would not likely change at all. It may even go down. But then, I'm not arguing every team should (or even that the Twins should) operate the same way. Indeed, if all you are doing is trying to be like everyone else, you are falling behind, because others will innovate. 

So, I answered your question. I'm not sure where that gets us, other than where we already were. We agree the Twins won't decided to break even. That they can't be expected to compete with the highest revenue teams on payroll (which I've said over and over). We agree the key to success is being better at identifying talent, developing talent, and getting rid of it at the right time. 

I get it now, you are not saying teams should cut into their profits just the Twins.  Of course, we would never expect a player to play for free or even at a significantly below market which I agree is reasonable.  Your expectation is every team and every player should continue to look out for their financial interests and the owners of our team should operate a non-profit.  Apparently you feel this is a reasonable expectation.  I would love to hear your reaction if your employer suggested you could opt to work for a fraction of your worth or if a client suggested you work for free because "you decide how much profit to make".   

My question is perfectly valid if our expectations of every team and every player are fairly and universally applied.  The expectation that our team should be the sole team to operate at minimal or no profit is entitled thinking.  Try approaching a home build or a car dealer and telling them your think they make nothing on your purchase because they decide how much profit they make.  

Btw ... If the Pohlad's decide to reduce their profit by 10 or 20 million, I sure home the donate the money to battered women and some other cause much more worth than and extra win or two.

[jorgenswest]

They went for it two years ago. They signed Donaldson. They traded for Maeda. They signed and re-signed to build a competitive staff. They lost in the playoffs.

They need a better core of pitchers before they go all in again. Free agents they sign this year could be a big burden on the payroll a few years down the road when they have a stronger core.

How often can a team in their market go all in? Every year? Every 3 years? 5? I don’t think it is every year and I don’t think this is the year. 

[bean5302]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:59 PM, Major League Ready said:

I get it now, you are not saying teams should cut into their profits just the Twins.  Of course, we would never expect a player to play for free or even at a significantly below market which I agree is reasonable.  Your expectation is every team and every player should continue to look out for their financial interests and the owners of our team should operate a non-profit.  Apparently you feel this is a reasonable expectation.  I would love to hear your reaction if your employer suggested you could opt to work for a fraction of your worth or if a client suggested you work for free because "you decide how much profit to make".   

My question is perfectly valid if our expectations of every team and every player are fairly and universally applied.  The expectation that our team should be the sole team to operate at minimal or no profit is entitled thinking.  Try approaching a home build or a car dealer and telling them your think they make nothing on your purchase because they decide how much profit they make.  

Btw ... If the Pohlad's decide to reduce their profit by 10 or 20 million, I sure home the donate the money to battered women and some other cause much more worth than and extra win or two.

Revenue is not remotely static. Spending more does not guarantee a loss of profit because the product on the field influences revenues greatly. Also, the Pohald family have received $350MM from taxpayers with the expectation they would field a competitive team. They have not done so. The Twins are 874-968 since Target Field opened. That's a .474 winning percentage and they were literally the worst team in baseball for a six year period almost immediately following the opening of Target Field. Yes, revenues have expanded; however, relative to the rest of baseball, the Twins have not increased spending from the days of the Metrodome. Ranking the payroll:

Stadium	Year	Rank	Median	Median Stadium	Winning Pct.	Median Pct.	Stadium Pct.
Metrodome	2000	30	30	30	0.426	0.426	0.426
Metrodome	2001	30	30	30	0.525	0.476	0.476
Metrodome	2002	27	30	30	0.584	0.525	0.525
Metrodome	2003	18	29	29	0.556	0.541	0.541
Metrodome	2004	19	27	27	0.568	0.556	0.556
Metrodome	2005	20	24	24	0.512	0.541	0.541
Metrodome	2006	19	20	20	0.593	0.556	0.556
Metrodome	2007	18	20	20	0.488	0.541	0.541
Metrodome	2008	25	20	20	0.54	0.54	0.54
Metrodome	2009	24	22	22	0.534	0.537	0.537
Target Field	2010	11	20	11	0.58	0.54	0.58
Target Field	2011	9	20	10	0.389	0.537	0.485
Target Field	2012	13	19	11	0.407	0.534	0.407
Target Field	2013	22	20	12	0.407	0.53	0.407
Target Field	2014	24	20	13	0.432	0.525	0.407
Target Field	2015	18	20	16	0.512	0.519	0.42
Target Field	2016	18	19	18	0.364	0.512	0.407
Target Field	2017	22	20	18	0.525	0.519	0.42
Target Field	2018	18	19	18	0.481	0.512	0.432
Target Field	2019	18	19	18	0.623	0.519	0.457
Target Field	2020	20	19	18	0.6	0.525	0.481
Target Field	2021	16	19	18	0.451	0.519	0.466

There was a short, 3 year bump in spending rank immedately with Bill Smith and the opening of Target Field. After which, the Pohlads and their GMs returned right back to where they were at the Metrodome despite massively more lucrative cable TV deals and stadium revenues. The fact the Twins spending rank is the same with Target Field as the Metrodome is disgusting.

 

 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

They went for it two years ago. They signed Donaldson. They traded for Maeda. They signed and re-signed to build a competitive staff. They lost in the playoffs.

They need a better core of pitchers before they go all in again. Free agents they sign this year could be a big burden on the payroll a few years down the road when they have a stronger core.

How often can a team in their market go all in? Every year? Every 3 years? 5? I don’t think it is every year and I don’t think this is the year. 

The Twins haven't gone "All In" since the opening of Target Field. Not even close. All in these days would be more like $170MM for Minnesota.

[Mike Sixel]

On 11/15/2021 at 2:59 PM, Major League Ready said:

I get it now, you are not saying teams should cut into their profits just the Twins.  Of course, we would never expect a player to play for free or even at a significantly below market which I agree is reasonable.  Your expectation is every team and every player should continue to look out for their financial interests and the owners of our team should operate a non-profit.  Apparently you feel this is a reasonable expectation.  I would love to hear your reaction if your employer suggested you could opt to work for a fraction of your worth or if a client suggested you work for free because "you decide how much profit to make".   

My question is perfectly valid if our expectations of every team and every player are fairly and universally applied.  The expectation that our team should be the sole team to operate at minimal or no profit is entitled thinking.  Try approaching a home build or a car dealer and telling them your think they make nothing on your purchase because they decide how much profit they make.  

Btw ... If the Pohlad's decide to reduce their profit by 10 or 20 million, I sure home the donate the money to battered women and some other cause much more worth than and extra win or two.

Like that's a choice they need to make. They could donate hundreds of millions and still have generational cash. Let's not go there.

And no, I have never said should reduce profit. I said it's their choice. Every time. Their choice. Not should. 

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

And no, I have never said should reduce profit. I said it's their choice. Every time. Their choice. Not should. 

The implication is the same regardless if you say could or should.  Are you really going to dance this way after constantly harping on they should spend more.  Framing it now as could does not change the fact the only way they can cut into the revenue advantage is to earn far less profit or none at all while every other team goes on making whatever level of profit they have been making.  

The outcome you suggest has the clear implication of the Twins being the only team to operate at a very meager profit or none at all.  As stated earlier, if other teams were willing to do the same the revenue discrepancy would actually grow.  So, could means the Twins make nothing, all other owners continue to make a healthy profit.  Of course, we expect players (ours and all others) to go on maximizing their income.  This is an undeniable result of what they could do.  Should they do this?  Is it a fair expectation?  Should our players be willing to take a cut if the Twins are willing operate at break-even.  They could but she we expect them to operate differently than all the other players?

[Otto von Ballpark]

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins have openly stated they don't carry money forward.  So you sign free agents when you have 50 million available.....because you have 50 million available that your organization chooses not to bank.  It's really that simple.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:37 PM, jorgenswest said:

They need a better core of pitchers before they go all in again. Free agents they sign this year could be a big burden on the payroll a few years down the road when they have a stronger core.

While I agree pitching is important, people become too centered on "striking at the perfect moment".

The Atlanta ****ing Braves just won the World Series without their best player, using an outfield they collected via spare parts in salary dumps, fielding a rotation that was... not awesome... particularly after the loss of Morton in game one. Out of their three best starters - Morton, Anderson, and Fried - they collected all of zero wins from any of them until Fried won the clincher in game six.

I'm not advocating that a front office act recklessly and try to go all-in every year - some temperance and timing is obviously necessary - but we need to stop waiting for the stars to align perfectly before giving up prospect capital, too. Who here doesn't regret the Twins not pushing more chips into the middle of the table in 2006, 2010, or 2019?

Instead of waiting for the perfect situation to fall into one's lap, sometimes you just have to go out and make your chance happen.

[jorgenswest]

12 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Instead of waiting for the perfect situation to fall into one's lap, sometimes you just have to go out and make your chance happen.

They have no established starting pitchers for next year. I am excited by Joe Ryan but his best comps (Ben Lively, Yusmiero Petit and Freddy Peralta) according to his delivery and mix were not difference makers in a rotation. Are we sure he will stay a starter? Can Ober hold up over a full season? Will home runs be a problem for Ober? Who else do they have? They are eons away from a perfect situation. 

They need to expect that a good chunk of the free agent value comes the first year with the contract being a burden in later years. I don’t think a big signing can move the needle enough to contend for a World Series this year and I don’t want the burden of this contract when it can.