Trading for starting pitcher

[Major League Ready]

47 minutes ago, Trov said:

Who do you wish they would have signed in last 2 to 3 years as a SP?  I bet if you looked up the names you wish they would have signed, outside of Cole, and Scherzer, you will not find to many names that are earning their contracts now. 

I have gone back and looked at literally every major free agent SP signing in the past 20 years.  The very top "Scherzer type" have panned out.  What people ignore is you better be ready to win in their first couple years because the Cueto / Corbin scenarios are the norm.  I have posted just how poorly free agent SPs have performed a couple times.  They have a horrible track record after the first year.  This last year they refused to give Berrios 7 years.  His ERA is 5.24 this year.  Robbie Ray has a 4.97 ERA and Gray's ERA is 4.83.  Rodriguez is a little better at 4.38 and the only long-term deal going well so far is Gausman with an ERA of 2.78.   It just amazes me that people continue to pound this drum while ignoring how poorly these deals go.  One in five would have been making any difference this year yet people still complain they did not make moves that would not have helped while ignoring they have added guys that look like they will contribute for years (Ryan / Duran / Winder / Smeltzer) plus the jury is still out on Jax but it looks like he will be a good BP piece.  Megill might be the same story.

Mike might be right that this FO might refuse to ever go there given how poor the track record has been for these deals.  However, as I said earlier, they are in a very enviable situation because they stuck to the plan of building from with.  It's somewhat ironic that building from within facilitates adding that final piece(s) through free agency or trade, especially for mid-market teams.  

Small and mid-market teams don't sign the huge money 5-10 year guys because the risk is too high and it is generally very difficult to piece together an entire roster.  The Twins roster has so much inexpensive talent emerging that spending a large percentage of payroll on a single player is not nearly as problematic  as it would be for most mid market teams.  Mike might still be right but if there was ever a time it is now.  They have the payroll capacity and there are seven very good free agents SPs next year.

[Number3]

Whatever is being thrown out there won't happen. Correa has the right salary. Just teach him to pitch and install Lewis at SS where he belongs. Problem solved. Twins playing the Yankees tonight but its much more fun to play GM with some down the road trade that will never happen.

[jorgenswest]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I have posted just how poorly free agent SPs have performed a couple times.  They have a horrible track record after the first year.

I did a similar look about 5 years ago. If the pitcher was young enough when they hit free agency it can work out or if they were elite it can work out. Beyond that signing pitcher at 30 or older past their age 32 season was not a good investment. Since then I have felt trades of prospects in seasons where teams are in contention is the better route.

Have you ever looked at how trades work out when you get an expiring contract or maybe 1 more year of control? How often do those traded prospects become stars? How often does the acquired starter continue their success with their new team?

I haven’t looked. It is harder to measure because you have to go way back so you can see what has happened to the prospect. Once you go back that far you wonder if the trade market is similar enough for comparison.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

Who do you wish they would have signed in last 2 to 3 years as a SP?  I bet if you looked up the names you wish they would have signed, outside of Cole, and Scherzer, you will not find to many names that are earning their contracts now. 

Which is why they don't sign them. I'm not sure you are arguing with the right person here. 

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

I did a similar look about 5 years ago. If the pitcher was young enough when they hit free agency it can work out or if they were elite it can work out. Beyond that signing pitcher at 30 or older past their age 32 season was not a good investment. Since then I have felt trades of prospects in seasons where teams are in contention is the better route.

Have you ever looked at how trades work out when you get an expiring contract or maybe 1 more year of control? How often do those traded prospects become stars? How often does the acquired starter continue their success with their new team?

I haven’t looked. It is harder to measure because you have to go way back so you can see what has happened to the prospect. Once you go back that far you wonder if the trade market is similar enough for comparison.

Kind of ... I wanted to understand how players were acquired by teams that built 90+ win rosters.  Then, I separated those rosters based on revenue because I was specifically interest on what practices were successful for small or mid-market teams in terms of building 90+ win teams.

My method was to identify all of the position players with 1.5+ WAR and RPs with over 1 WAR.  I then identified them as Free Agent / Traded for as an established player or traded before becoming established or Drafted.  The bar for being established was that they had 1 or more seasons with 1.5 WAR or more.

Players acquired as prospects (before becoming established)  and acquired through the draft are pretty equal and are by far the dominant influences on building a dominant team in a small/mid market.  Trades and free agency play a very small.  The free agents that are impactful are generally modest price guys that exceed expectations.  

We have some good examples coming to fruition presently in Ryan / Duran / Celestino / Smeltzer.  SWR and Austin Martin will hopefully add to this list as well.  

[Mike Sixel]

Maeda should be a RP next year. And this is he's healthy.

[jorgenswest]

5 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Players acquired as prospects (before becoming established)  and acquired through the draft are pretty equal and are by far the dominant influences on building a dominant team in a small/mid market.  Trades and free agency play a very small.  The free agents that are impactful are generally modest price guys that exceed expectations.

It sounds like the key is the be able to identify and develop young players. It hasn’t helped to make trades or sign free agents long term.

Would you be more reluctant to trade prospects or offer a big 5 year deal to a pitcher? Would you do neither and rely on the pipeline?

[Trov]

25 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

I did a similar look about 5 years ago. If the pitcher was young enough when they hit free agency it can work out or if they were elite it can work out. Beyond that signing pitcher at 30 or older past their age 32 season was not a good investment. Since then I have felt trades of prospects in seasons where teams are in contention is the better route.

Have you ever looked at how trades work out when you get an expiring contract or maybe 1 more year of control? How often do those traded prospects become stars? How often does the acquired starter continue their success with their new team?

I haven’t looked. It is harder to measure because you have to go way back so you can see what has happened to the prospect. Once you go back that far you wonder if the trade market is similar enough for comparison.

I have not done a deep dive on trades, but I would bet there is a mixed bag over the years.  Some of the vet starters help out, some do not, and some the prospect becomes huge, and some do not.  For example, we got Odo, and the player we traded came back to us in minor league free agent.  However, White Sox sure made the wrong call trading for James Shields when they gave away Tatis Jr. for him.  James was 34 when they traded for him, so as pointed out many pitchers, outside of future HOF really fall off after 32. Tatis already has much more WAR than what Shields gave Sox.  

If you go back to 1987, a trade that Tigers made really is looked at as a loss for Tigers.  They traded for Doyle Alexander, who in 1987 went 9-0 with a 1.53 ERA down stretch for Tigers, 88 and 89 was not nearly as good.  He helped Tigers win division and was supposed to beat Twins in ALCS, but we won that one.  At the time bringing in Alexander on short term rental looked good in 87, even if they lost in playoffs, but they gave up future HOF John Smoltz. 

Now, I do not think Montas is the difference between us making playoffs and not, and if we do, I do not know if he would be the reason we advance in playoffs.  If we knew he would get us a WS, I give up Lewis for sure.  He may be a future HOF, doubtful it would be full career with us, but more like 6 years, we do not know if we would win any WS in that time.  Look at Mike Trout, he is best to play the game in a very long time, and he has had no post season wins, most of the time they never make it.  I bet all Angel fans looking back would have said trade him for a WS they would take it now, but at the time no way would they have traded him. 

[DJL44]

14 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Ober to IL. The Twins have a rotation of TBA, Archer and Bundy to go up against the Yankees. They back that up with Smeltzer and TBA for the Rays. I am guessing Cole Sands pitches tomorrow and maybe Chi Chi Gonzalez for the TB series and then maybe back to Sands unless Ryan is ready by then.

They might consider trading prospects for starting pitching.

Ryan, Gray, Ober, Winder, Paddack, Maeda and Dobnak are on the IL. That's an entire rotation plus 2 spots. We are one turn through the rotation away from Dylan Bundy and Chris Archer leading the team in innings pitched. Smeltzer has been great so far but they're in desperate need of another starter to keep this division lead.

[Trov]

27 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

It sounds like the key is the be able to identify and develop young players. It hasn’t helped to make trades or sign free agents long term.

Would you be more reluctant to trade prospects or offer a big 5 year deal to a pitcher? Would you do neither and rely on the pipeline?

For me, I agree that having a pipeline is the best way to go, as most FA are at the tail end of output, unless they are HOF bound.  I would much rather trade a prospect for a guy on the right side of 30 than sign a guy with 3 or 4 dead years of vastly overpaid years, that you feel you need to keep marching them out because of how much they are paid.  The question is, which prospect, and how much do you like your pipeline.  

White Sox made a terrible trade when they brought in James Shields, who was 34 at time of trade for top prospect Tatis Jr.  Sox had depth at SS and 3b so they felt they could make that traded, but looking back it was terrible call. I would never give up a top prospect for a 34 year old guy on big contract, unless they are HOF bound. 

[Trov]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

Ryan, Gray, Ober, Winder, Paddack, Maeda and Dobnak are on the IL. That's an entire rotation plus 2 spots. We are one turn through the rotation away from Dylan Bundy and Chris Archer leading the team in innings pitched. Smeltzer has been great so far but they're in desperate need of another starter to keep this division lead.

That is true, however, what do you do when you bring in a guy with another year of control for next year, and all those guys come back on 40 man roster next year?  Sure Bundy and Archer will be off, but you have like 8 or 9 guys all that could be starters.  We can trade some away, but when teams know you are trading from depth they will be less likely to give you fair value back. 

[bunsen82]

Ryan should be back shortly.  None of the other injuries should be long term- back within a week or two other than Paddack for players who have currently been starters.  Dobnak and Maeda will be available later.  Personally I see no need to spend big on a starter, unless we want to start consolidating our prospects a bit which I am fine either way.  We will most likely be looking for a player with multiple years of control.  I would be curious to see if we will have more just minor league trades this year.  I really don't think the Twins are too interested in selling off on their prospects unless they can consolidate into better values.  For help this year,  I could see an Enlow for a slightly above average RP with a team whose pitching prospects are poor.  Remove a player from the 40 man to open another spot for some slight value this year.  Otherwise Enlow is likely dropped from the 40 man later in the year and picked up by another team.  

[TwinsDr2021]

44 minutes ago, Trov said:

For me, I agree that having a pipeline is the best way to go, as most FA are at the tail end of output, unless they are HOF bound.  I would much rather trade a prospect for a guy on the right side of 30 than sign a guy with 3 or 4 dead years of vastly overpaid years, that you feel you need to keep marching them out because of how much they are paid.  The question is, which prospect, and how much do you like your pipeline.  

White Sox made a terrible trade when they brought in James Shields, who was 34 at time of trade for top prospect Tatis Jr.  Sox had depth at SS and 3b so they felt they could make that traded, but looking back it was terrible call. I would never give up a top prospect for a 34 year old guy on big contract, unless they are HOF bound. 

I would add a pipeline requires you to trade for other teams prospects, no team can draft its way to a pipe line. Look at the current Twins as an example.

[KirbyDome89]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Yes, if they only would have landed Robbie Ray like you wanted all would be solved.  His 4.97 ERA would have been the solution.  They had absolutely no chance of building a contender through free agency.

Not the argument I've made. Stop with the straw man. 

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, USAFChief said:

. If we just forget about this year, AGAIN, well then next year the stars will align,  all these prospects will be All Stars, starting pitchers will fall from the free agent candy tree like raindrops, and by gosh then we'll go for it! That'll be just the right time.

 

It's the "carrot on a stick" strategy. We'll grab that carrot NEXT year. 

If the Twins fall apart and miss the postseason or get embarrassed upon entry;

"they weren't real contenders and the FO shouldn't spend until the teams proves otherwise."

If the Twins finish strong, actually wins a few games playoff games, or even a series;

"They've shown they don't need to add high level pitching," or "There are too many good/great cost controlled players, why replace any of them with such a risk?" 

Take your pick, the narrative will always shift to match the results. We can simply look back over the last 6 years and see the FO, for better or worse, has no interest in committing the years and money it'd take to land a front end starter, but I guess you and I lack the insight others seem to have when it comes to the "true plan." 

[DJL44]

36 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

Ryan should be back shortly.  None of the other injuries should be long term- back within a week or two other than Paddack for players who have currently been starters.  Dobnak and Maeda will be available later. 

The injuries aren't generally long term but Winder's shoulder is a nagging injury that has limited him his entire career. They're also sure to have more injuries as the season continues. Dobnak might not pitch again in the big leagues - he's been out for nearly a year with a finger ligament injury. Maeda might not be 100% when he returns and he's sure to be innings-limited. Smeltzer has dealt with a number of injuries over his career.

A rental on an expiring contract (like Kyle Gibson or Drew Smyly) would be a welcome upgrade on Bundy.

[bunsen82]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The injuries aren't generally long term but Winder's shoulder is a nagging injury that has limited him his entire career. They're also sure to have more injuries as the season continues. Dobnak might not pitch again in the big leagues - he's been out for nearly a year with a finger ligament injury. Maeda might not be 100% when he returns and he's sure to be innings-limited. Smeltzer has dealt with a number of injuries over his career.

A rental on an expiring contract (like Kyle Gibson or Drew Smyly) would be a welcome upgrade on Bundy.

Thats much different than going all in on a Montas -  I can agree with either of those pickups.  

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Precisely--we should expect a departure.  You're thinking of this completely backwards--small to mid market teams (at least the well-run ones) don't spend big to fill holes, because filling holes only makes the boat float, it doesn't make it move.  Small to mid market teams (at least the well-run ones) fix the holes internally, and then spend big to buy engines.

It made no sense for the Twins to spend big on one free agent pitcher when they entered the offseason with literally 2 mostly unproven rookies as the entirety of their rotation.  When the Twins enter this offseason with (hopefully) a solid #2 pitcher (Gray), 2-3 somewhat proven young guys (Ryan, Ober, Winder), 2 established vets coming back from injuries (Maeda and Paddack), and some good depth options (Smeltzer and Dobnak), not to mention a passel of nice prospects (SWR, Balazovic, Varland, etc), spending on an ace makes a lot of sense.

Based on what exactly? What has the FO done to signal that this offseason is the one. 

I'm in agreement about why they shouldn't shy away from pitching, I've felt that way for a while, but these could/should arguments, like every year, are just fan desire. This particular iteration isn't pulling back the curtains for a glimpse at the machine.  

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

If the Twins fall apart and miss the postseason or get embarrassed upon entry;

"they weren't real contenders and the FO shouldn't spend until the teams proves otherwise."

If the Twins finish strong, actually wins a few games playoff games, or even a series;

"They've shown they don't need to add high level pitching," or "There are too many good/great cost controlled players, why replace any of them with such a risk?" 

Take your pick, the narrative will always shift to match the results. We can simply look back over the last 6 years and see the FO, for better or worse, has no interest in committing the years and money it'd take to land a front end starter, but I guess you and I lack the insight others seem to have when it comes to the "true plan." 

Name a team in the bottom 1/2 of revenue that has signed a free agent SP for over $100M.  As far as i know, it has happened twice in the past 25 years.  Mike Hampton / Colorado which was an absolute disaster and Zack Greinke / Arizona.  The Dbacks won 69 games his first year, 93 the 2nd, and 82 the third year and then they traded him away.  Of course, they had just signed a billion dollar TV deal in 2016 when they signed him.  The point being characterizing this as a "this FO thing" is not accurate.  It's something that is extremely rare among teams in the bottom half of revenue.  The question is are they all incompetent or cheap as you seem to suggest or do other teams with modest revenue understand something about building rosters that perhaps you don't understand.  Given it's so rarely done it's hard to conclude that either all of these GMs are incompetent or you don't understand why the follow these practices.  It has to be one or the other.  Someone with a superior understanding of how to run a team as compared to all these other GMs should be able to convince an owner to make them the CBO or GM.

[KirbyDome89]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Name a team in the bottom 1/2 of revenue that has signed a free agent SP for over $100M.  As far as i know, it has happened twice in the past 25 years.  Mike Hampton / Colorado which was an absolute disaster and Zack Greinke / Arizona.  The Dbacks won 69 games his first year, 93 the 2nd, and 82 the third year and then they traded him away.  Of course, they had just signed a billion dollar TV deal in 2016 when they signed him.  The point being characterizing this as a "this FO thing" is not accurate.  It's something that is extremely rare among teams in the bottom half of revenue.  The question is are they all incompetent or cheap as you seem to suggest or do other teams with modest revenue understand something about building rosters that perhaps you don't understand.  Given it's so rarely done it's hard to conclude that either all of these GMs are incompetent or you don't understand why the follow these practices.  It has to be one or the other.  Someone with a superior understanding of how to run a team as compared to all these other GMs should be able to convince an owner to make them the CBO or GM.

Again, stoooop with the straw man. You're ****ing exhausting.

YOU made the assertion they were going to spend big on pitching this offseason. I'm highly skeptical, and I've got 6 years of this FO passing on long term/big money pitching commitments to support that stance. Spare me the condescension and actually point to decisions made (not your theory why it's time) by this FO that indicate they're likely to win the bidding for a front line starter. 

[bunsen82]

5 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Again, stoooop with the straw man. You're ****ing exhausting.

YOU made the assertion they were going to spend big on pitching this offseason. I'm highly skeptical, and I've got 6 years of this FO passing on long term/big money pitching commitments to support that stance. Spare me the condescension and actually point to decisions made (not your theory why it's time) by this FO that indicate they're likely to win the bidding for a front line starter. 

We have only legitimately gone after a couple big name pitchers during the last 6 years with Darvish being the most notable.  They never want to be outbid.  Even on Donaldson they waited until he came down to their value they were willing to pay.  

[Jerr]

No trading Lewis in any deal, NO!!!!

 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Again, stoooop with the straw man. You're ****ing exhausting.

YOU made the assertion they were going to spend big on pitching this offseason. I'm highly skeptical, and I've got 6 years of this FO passing on long term/big money pitching commitments to support that stance. Spare me the condescension and actually point to decisions made (not your theory why it's time) by this FO that indicate they're likely to win the bidding for a front line starter. 

I have conceded they might not ever spend the money while pointing out they are in position with so many cheap players that it gives them more budget than a team with their revenue would normally have.  They were serious enough about Darvish and Wheeler to suggest they would be willing given the budget scenario before them next year.   I am not the one beating the drum that THIS front office won't make such a signing while ignoring that it's almost never done.  If you want to suggest all of these GMs are incompetent and you are more skilled, make your case but don't continue to insist it's about this front office.  History shows quite clearly that's an ignorant statement.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I have conceded they might not ever spend the money while pointing out they are in position with so many cheap players that it gives them more budget than a team with their revenue would normally have.  They were serious enough about Darvish and Wheeler to suggest they would be willing given the budget scenario before them next year.   I am not the one beating the drum that THIS front office won't make such a signing while ignoring that it's almost never done.  If you want to suggest all of these GMs are incompetent and you are more skilled, make your case but don't continue to insist it's about this front office.  History shows quite clearly that's an ignorant statement.

If it's highly unlikely (what I've said all along) then wtf are you even arguing at this point? You can't name a single decision that suggests a massive departure from their track record, but me highlighting that total absence = ignorance/hubris? D'okay. If you can't address what I'm actually saying, and you need to misrepresent a simple point, then just move along. Seriously. I know I'm not the only one who's tired of this.

[Major League Ready]

19 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

If it's highly unlikely (what I've said all along) then wtf are you even arguing at this point? You can't name a single decision that suggests a massive departure from their track record, but me highlighting that total absence = ignorance/hubris? D'okay. If you can't address what I'm actually saying, and you need to misrepresent a simple point, then just move along. Seriously. I know I'm not the only one who's tired of this.

You and many others have absolutely insisted it's a Twins front office thing.   Is this or is this not correct?  That ignores that these contracts are extremely rare for similar revenue teams.  The position you have taken suggests failing to make such signings is incompetent.  We can also make a fair conclusion that suggests you have a superior understanding to all of these front offices as to what should be done.  I am simply offering an opinion that these many individuals who were deemed qualified for the job are probably not the individuals with an inferior understanding but go ahead and assume that if you don't understand their actions it must because of their ignorance and incompetence.

[DJL44]

Noah Syndergaard could be available at the deadline. He hasn't been worth his $21M contract but he's been competent. It shouldn't take a big name prospect to acquire him.

[Major League Ready]

19 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

It sounds like the key is the be able to identify and develop young players. It hasn’t helped to make trades or sign free agents long term.

Would you be more reluctant to trade prospects or offer a big 5 year deal to a pitcher? Would you do neither and rely on the pipeline?

I would follow the practices and strategies that have proven to be effective.  The list below shows the number of 90 win seasons for teams in the bottom half of revenue.  Would it not make sense to follow the practices of Oakland, Tampa, and Cleveland given those three teams have been by far the most successful teams?    

Oakland    10
Indians    9
Rays        8
Twins        6
Dbacks    4
Brewers    4
Mariners    4
Reds        3
Orioles    2
Pirates        2
Marlins    1
Padres        1
Royals        1 
Rockies    1

Take any season in which these teams have won 90+ games.  Then, pull up Fangraphs for the given season and look at the players contributing 1.5+ WAR.  You will find that drafting and trades for prospects make up about 80% of that WAR. Free agent acquisitions make up about 15%.  However, the portion of that 15% related to premium free agent (5+ years) is almost non-existent.  Nelson Cruz is a great example.  Low number of years and 5-15m/year.  The portion related to Established star players acquired in trade is extremely small.

If I were sum up the strategy in a paragraph.  I would follow those teams practices while using the revenue advantage the twins have over Cleveland / Oakland and Tampa to either extend players or spend the incremental revenue on free agents.  In the scenario we will have next year, it would be viable to land a $/$25M type free agent.

Just like those teams I would be very reluctant to trade prospects for players with less than 2 years control.  The Gray trade was a good use of assets because it was 2 full years for a high school pitcher.  While he was a great prospect.  We all know the odds for HS SPs is low so I like those odds.  Trading 6+ year assets for 1-year assets is a good way to be better for 1 year but bad most years.  
 

[notoriousgod71]

Trading for a starting pitcher is irrelevant since this organization won't let them pitch deep into ball games anyway.

Sandy Koufax could go out there and throw 5.1 perfect innings every single game and this bullpen/manager would find a way to blow at least half of those.

[Trov]

10 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Noah Syndergaard could be available at the deadline. He hasn't been worth his $21M contract but he's been competent. It shouldn't take a big name prospect to acquire him.

At the time of original post, that Angels were still above .500.  If they continue to slide I would agree he will get dumped, and if someone is willing to take on rest of pay it will not take much of a prospect most likely.  He has been okay, not great and most likely would slide into about 3 or 4 if we have a fully healthy rotation.

[Trov]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I would follow the practices and strategies that have proven to be effective.  The list below shows the number of 90 win seasons for teams in the bottom half of revenue.  Would it not make sense to follow the practices of Oakland, Tampa, and Cleveland given those three teams have been by far the most successful teams?    

Oakland    10
Indians    9
Rays        8
Twins        6
Dbacks    4
Brewers    4
Mariners    4
Reds        3
Orioles    2
Pirates        2
Marlins    1
Padres        1
Royals        1 
Rockies    1

Take any season in which these teams have won 90+ games.  Then, pull up Fangraphs for the given season and look at the players contributing 1.5+ WAR.  You will find that drafting and trades for prospects make up about 80% of that WAR. Free agent acquisitions make up about 15%.  However, the portion of that 15% related to premium free agent (5+ years) is almost non-existent.  Nelson Cruz is a great example.  Low number of years and 5-15m/year.  The portion related to Established star players acquired in trade is extremely small.

If I were sum up the strategy in a paragraph.  I would follow those teams practices while using the revenue advantage the twins have over Cleveland / Oakland and Tampa to either extend players or spend the incremental revenue on free agents.  In the scenario we will have next year, it would be viable to land a $/$25M type free agent.

Just like those teams I would be very reluctant to trade prospects for players with less than 2 years control.  The Gray trade was a good use of assets because it was 2 full years for a high school pitcher.  While he was a great prospect.  We all know the odds for HS SPs is low so I like those odds.  Trading 6+ year assets for 1-year assets is a good way to be better for 1 year but bad most years.  
 

How do you know all those teams are on bottom half of "revenue"?  They are on bottom half of payroll, and a few you know are on bottom half of "revenue", like the Rays and A's based on just general attendance.  However we do not know for sure where the revenues really are at, other than Atlanta who has to show those numbers.