Minnesota's Offseason Strategy Doesn't Work with a Lockout

They need to find some sneaky good signings like Schoop and CJ Cron,  in positions where they need them.  Those were two of the more shrewd off season moves the Twins have made.  Nellie Cruz was one of the BEST signings ever.  Especially in 2019.  That one for me, comes in just behind Jack Morris in 1991.    

Like the FO I have to wait and see.  So far I am not excited by their work, but I am excited to see the young arms if they are really going to let them loose. 

We will have to wait and see what happens.  My guess is that they will do like they normally  do in waiting until the very end so they can sign the leftovers none else wants.  At this point how anyone can say we have a solid core must not have watched them play last year.  I hope once the lockout ends the Twins will sign someone of significance for the team especially the pitching staff that is not major league ready.  Plus we have a question at shortstop and outfield.  As I recall we finished last in the central last year and did really nothing before the lockout while several teams made moves.  This to me solidifies the plans to add leftovers, roll the dice and hope for the best.  I think this is a big year for the FO.  They need to show they know what they are doing and get the team back on track 

My frustration with the front office is that the team won 101 games in 2019, and were 36 and 24 in 2020.  If ever a team should make a major investment in free agency, it is when you have a team capable of winning a 100 games a year.  Instead, they did the usual wait and see what is available late, which totally collapsed on them last year.  I will never understand why they didn't make a major push by trading for players or signing top flight free agents when they were on the cusp of being a series contender.  It was a lost opportunity.

Interesting observation about how a payroll floor would damage their go to free agent plan. 
I get why they don’t want to live in free agency. However they can’t be so rigid as some years it may be your only option. From a pitching standpoint this was one of those years. They are going to throw away this season by being so rigid. 

Looking back 3 years it is safe to say that the off-season moves haven't worked for any of them. I don't see any World Series titles attached to them. We were told they plan on being competitive in 2022. That is not the same thing as saying they plan on trying to win a Championship. Isn't that the goal? Shouldn't that be the goal every year? Otherwise why are you playing? When you have a club that wins 100 games and you don't make it better what have you done? Nothing! Why pick from leftovers? If you want to get better short-term and sustain it long-term as well, the best way to do that is through Free Agency so you don't have to trade away your prospects, who help you long-term. Is trading away a stalwart in the rotation like Berrios a good way to get better short-term when you already know the rotation needs help? Doesn't look that way to me. I hear a lot of talk from Falvine but don't see much action that can really make a difference.

Hard to say how Free Agency will go after the lockout and new CBA.  Will it be a feeding frenzy to try and sign players as fast as possible or will teams want to figure out what they have and take their time getting there. Personally, I think things will happen fast.

They gain two 40 man spots when they can put Enlow and Maeda on the injured list but other than a shortstop and another starter I am not sure what else the Twins plan to do this year in free agency.  The 40 man is pretty full of younger players so unless they are trading they might have to lose guys to add guys.  Thorpe, Jax and maybe Stashak seem like the only pitchers that they could remove if they find something substantially better.

I guess I don’t see them being overly active unless there are players out there that look like bargains once the merry go round stops.

Nothing they have done since coming to the Twins should make anyone excited. When we make it to the postseason, we show we don't belong there by getting booted in the first series, usually by the Yankees.

The issues this team has with pitching, is not new, it's been here as long as they have! But yet again, I'd like to point out while other clubs were scrambling to make deals before the lockout, the Twins centered all of their attention on Buxton. A player who sees the field only 30-35% of the time, and was still under contract. This front office is incompetent. Like Buxton, they are with the Twins because no other team would put up with them.

The lockout was inevitable, and that should have prompted some changes in strategy this off-season from the late cycle bargain shopping usually employed. I may be wrong, but it seemed the Twins FO was caught by surprise with the flurry of early FA signings prior to the lockout. And now, with trades and signings stalled indefinitely, we'll have a lot of competition with time on their hands scouring the field for "bargains".

The lockout came as no surprise. So I am a bit concerned that we didn't see a bit of a strategy shift to front load more roster activity. Bundy and Cotton so far. We'll see what happens this spring.

I don't like the wait & see approach that they've been doing especially the last couple of years. Scrambling at the end to search through the bargain basement, usually don't bide well. Ending up w/ pieces that don't fit in the organization, Happ (a soft throwing lefty in a RH hitting dominating division) & Shoemaker (trying to convert him in a pitcher he didn't want to be). We got a great deal on Lance Lynn but he was out of shape and disgruntle so it wasn't such a great deal. 

I prefer looking for a gems early in the off season that fit the club and give them a fair deal. Much like TOR did with Robby Ray. I liked the Cron & Scoop deals which Scoop helped us land Cruz. This philosophy is especially appropriate this season, to lock up a gem before the lock out.

IMO players were motivated to sign before. Giving security to both the players and to the clubs. Now everything is in limbo just waiting for the feeding frenzy which leaves us holding the bag with nothing in it.

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

Looking back 3 years it is safe to say that the off-season moves haven't worked for any of them. I don't see any World Series titles attached to them. We were told they plan on being competitive in 2022. That is not the same thing as saying they plan on trying to win a Championship. Isn't that the goal? Shouldn't that be the goal every year? Otherwise why are you playing? 

Absolutely not.  This singular focus would make for prolonged mediocrity.  That's why Chicago traded away Sale and Eaton.  It's why Oakland traded away Samardzija for Semien and Bassit.  It's why Seattle traded away Cano / Diaz and on and on.  Contending shouldn't even be a consideration for really bad teams. Of course, the Twins have a reasonably good offense and that makes this question debatable. 

If you want a good indication of what strategy they should be following wouldn't it make sense to study how contenders outside the top 10 in revenue have been built.  Shouldn't we want the FO to follow strategies that have been proven effective.  The Twins have enough revenue to extend players like they have with Buxton, Polanco, and Kepler.  They can also fill a hole or two but trying to rebuild to the extent needed here through Free agency is a very low probability play. 

Can you give an examples of contenders among teams with similar or less revenue over the past couple decades.  Is this how Cleveland or Oakland or Tampa or Pittsburgh or Kansas City or Milwaukee built playoff teams?

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Absolutely not. 

100% agree it can't be all years. sometimes the stars don't align, injuries and prospect or two don't work out.

But when you are a core of Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Kepler, Cruz, Berrios, Garver, Arraez, Berrios, Gibson, Duffey, Rogers and May. All home grown talent except Cruz, you have to supplement that core with some other top end talent.

The Twins didn't and instead Cruz, Berrios, Gibson, Rosario, May are gone, and they now the hope is they will supplement that with prospects. And if those prospects turn out to be good in a year, two or three, the whole original core will be gone minus Buxton, and they will be back trying to supplemented the prospects that worked out. and the Cycle will continue ( and quite of bit of MN Twins fans will rejoice because of the hope and promise of the next group of prospects), because always relying on prospects to continue success will never work long term.

And I would ask for examples where that has worked long term.

2020 was the season for the Twins to go all in, they just had come off a 100 win 2019 season. So what did this front office do? They resigned Pineda to a cheap 2 year contract, singed Homer Bailey to an even cheaper 1 year contract, signed Rich Hill to an even cheaper contract and wowed the fans with a Tyler Clippard signing. Swapped out Castro for Avilia for a 2.5 million dollar savings, and let Gibson, Cron, Schoop and Perez go (probably all smart).

At this point they made a 100 win team worse, then because they failed at everything else and there was no way the fans would accept making the team worse and not spending money; in late January they signed Donaldson to a huge contract. But knowing the team was still worse and lacked pitching they traded for Maeda (the one thing that really worked out) in early February.

And because of that crappy arse offseason the Twins put themselves in the position for what happened in 2021 and where they are today. (if they couldn't have signed top talent they had trade capital with prospects, because two years later all of those prospects are you guessed it still just prospects)

The fact that they weren't aggressive right off the bat in addressing this club's glaring needs in the starting rotation is unforgivable. They've even implied that they were "surprised" by the speed of the offseason market. Really?! 

I laugh out loud when I read quotes like this: "I've approached each of the last three offseasons, really even going back after '17, with an approach: 'How do we find a way to get better now and in the future?'" - Um, isn't that literally the general description of your job? And the job/goal of every single FO in MLB? Plenty of high-minded words from these two that mean absolutely nothing.

If the offense clicks in '22, if Buxton is an MVP, and if it's the pitching that sinks this club, articles like this should get plenty of credit for foresight. This was likely the wrong offseason for wait-and-see moves.

3 hours ago, Dman said:

Hard to say how Free Agency will go after the lockout and new CBA.  Will it be a feeding frenzy to try and sign players as fast as possible or will teams want to figure out what they have and take their time getting there. Personally, I think things will happen fast.

They gain two 40 man spots when they can put Enlow and Maeda on the injured list but other than a shortstop and another starter I am not sure what else the Twins plan to do this year in free agency.  The 40 man is pretty full of younger players so unless they are trading they might have to lose guys to add guys.  Thorpe, Jax and maybe Stashak seem like the only pitchers that they could remove if they find something substantially better.

I guess I don’t see them being overly active unless there are players out there that look like bargains once the merry go round stops.

It's hard for me to imagine the rest of the offseason not moving super quickly.  Less than 3 weeks now until the date when catchers and pitchers are supposed to report in a normal offseason.  The way negotiations are going, I doubt there is an agreement until a few days before that date (Feb 14), or even after.  It'll be a pretty quick dash for teams to finish their offseason plans after that.

I guess it wasn't totally obvious in the fall that this is how the offseason would play out.  Plenty of prognosticators thought players and teams would be reluctant to make deals before a new CBA so the pre-lockout period would be slow.  It did kind of make sense. But I think some of the smartest teams probably looked forward a few more months than that and made sure to get most of their work done early.

In retrospect, I think it was a pretty terrible offseason to take the patient approach, which seems to be the MO for this front office.  I'm not very optimistic that we're going to be super excited with what they end up with after it all shakes out.

7 minutes ago, 2wins87 said:

It's hard for me to imagine the rest of the offseason not moving super quickly.  Less than 3 weeks now until the date when catchers and pitchers are supposed to report in a normal offseason.  The way negotiations are going, I doubt there is an agreement until a few days before that date (Feb 14), or even after.  It'll be a pretty quick dash for teams to finish their offseason plans after that.

I guess it wasn't totally obvious in the fall that this is how the offseason would play out.  Plenty of prognosticators thought players and teams would be reluctant to make deals before a new CBA so the pre-lockout period would be slow.  It did kind of make sense. But I think some of the smartest teams probably looked forward a few more months than that and made sure to get most of their work done early.

In retrospect, I think it was a pretty terrible offseason to take the patient approach, which seems to be the MO for this front office.  I'm not very optimistic that we're going to be super excited with what they end up with after it all shakes out.

Yeah I tend to agree with you.  There isn't much that they can get in free agency that will matter at this point.  They still could pull off a meaningful trade but I am not holding my breath there either.  With the Berrios trade and lack of action on getting top end arms it feels like they have left themselves too thin on the pitching side.  It really feels like this is a take your lumps with the younger arms and see what sticks and or maybe get a breakout or two or three and suddenly this is a team that can compete.  I think they are mainly going to keep the reinforcements internal though.

Please tell me that the Dodgers and Yankees goal isn't to try to win it all every year. Sure they have the added revenue to make it much easier but that is why you play. Did the Twins go into 2021 expecting not to compete for a Championship especially coming off of 2 successful seasons? Falvine signs left-overs to get the team to the next level? Just like they have done this off-season to try to turn the team back into a winner? What is their goal if it isn't to win it all each season? Oh yeah, they told us..... it's to be competitive. If being competitive is to win a few games they are really good at doing that. Some day it would be nice to win the games that really count. It's been 30 years since that has been done.

The Twins just need to shake up their talent acquisition methods a little.  They struck early in the offseason a few years back and that was the last time they did that.  They do not do many trades in the offseason.  Though deadline deals usually get done.  Usually, selling instead of adding .....  Dumpster Diving can only go so far.  Getting Donladson and Cruz and reasonable rates are not always going to be the norm.  If all we do is dumpster dive then others will start following our lead as we do the same predictable thing over and over again.  Though I wonder if we will get lucky with Story and get him on a shorter-term contract.  but anyways I think this offseason we will resign Pineda and trade for a starter and I hope we sign a SS or middle IF especially one who can hit since our pitching is more likely to be downgraded from last year to some extent.  

I strongly disagree with the notion that Rich Hill was a cheap signing with limited upside. He was coming off a run of three seasons where, per inning pitched, he was among the elite pitchers in MLB. 

Therein lay the rub with why the Twins could sign him for cheap. He was a dominant starter when healthy, but that injury and injury risk is why the Twins could afford a pitcher of that caliber. If Hill was expected to throw 150+ standard Rich Hill level innings, he would have been a $15-$20mil pitcher. Instead he was expected to throw 60-ish innings and only cost about $4.5mil plus incentives.

Pineda is another example of a pitcher whose recent performance, prior to them signing, brought with it an upside of excellence and was really only available at a price the Twins could accept due to injury and injury concerns.

Those are the very kind of signings the Twins need to do more of. Those are low to medium cost signings, where the ceiling is excellence. 

Those signing are very different compared to the Happ, Shoe, Perez signings, where the upside is reliable, average-ish pitching. That means basically any performance short of their upside means you might as well let a AAA prospect have those innings.

"It's clear the club doesn't want to enter a long rebuilding phase."

Is it?

4 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

100% agree it can't be all years. sometimes the stars don't align, injuries and prospect or two don't work out.

But when you are a core of Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Kepler, Cruz, Berrios, Garver, Arraez, Berrios, Gibson, Duffey, Rogers and May. All home grown talent except Cruz, you have to supplement that core with some other top end talent.

The Twins didn't and instead Cruz, Berrios, Gibson, Rosario, May are gone, and they now the hope is they will supplement that with prospects. And if those prospects turn out to be good in a year, two or three, the whole original core will be gone minus Buxton, and they will be back trying to supplemented the prospects that worked out. and the Cycle will continue ( and quite of bit of MN Twins fans will rejoice because of the hope and promise of the next group of prospects), because always relying on prospects to continue success will never work long term.

And I would ask for examples where that has worked long term.

For starters, what happened 2 or 3 or 4 years ago is a different topic.  I have no problem with what they did for the 2019 and 2020 seasons.  Anyone and I mean anyone could trade away the future for the present.  Even the top revenue teams have become very reluctant to trade their top talent.  The Dodgers would not be where they are today if they would have traded away any number of players 3-6 years ago to "go for it".  Sustaining success is much harder.  Most fans put far more weight on the immediate and that's the reason fans hate management. 

I have gone to a fair amount of effort to summarize how the top WAR players were acquired for playoff teams.  I broke them down to drafted / Traded for as prospects or unestablished MLB players /  Traded for as established MLB players and free agents.  I have posted those summaries here.  I have also posted summaries of several teams.  In other words, I have posted a great deal of evidence.  That information is largely ignored.  Of course, I would not expect evidence to sway fanaticism.  That would be naive on my part.

I have asked many times for people to give even a single example of below average revenue teams that sustained any success (reached the playoffs) that produced a significant portion of their WAR via free agency or specifically established / expensive free agents.  Modest or low priced free agents that over achieved have actually played a role.  History shows that drafting and development + trading for prospects is by far the most influential form of acquisition for teams outside the top 10 in revenue.  Over performing free agents next.  High price free agents and high profile trades have a very modest impact so there are many examples if you are willing to look without bias.  

I am not going to post the information again.  It would just be ignored again.  I will however mention one more time that for all the bitching about the going for it approach, not a single person has ever been willing to challenge the assertions I have made about talent acquisition with examples.  There has to be a couple that at least have some validity.  If the methods so often insisted upon here were viable there would be all kinds of examples and posters VERY eager to prove I am full of $h!( and the front office is incompetent.  Instead, everyone just refuses to actually take a look at how playoff teams have been constructed in a methodical way.  In other words, take the top players in terms of WAR and list how they were acquired.

First, I want to be very clear I haven't liked every move the FO has made, or not made, in their tenure. Period! I also want to state very clearly that I understand, appreciate, and even agree with "limited" moves that could have been made by the FO coming off tremendous 20219 and 2020 seasons. Even a single, significant pitching acquisition might have made a difference that would have been tangible. I get the frustration,  I really do, as I'm about as devout a Twins fan as you will find, and have been for over 40+ years.

Maybe my approach is just different than others, but as a fan my goal is NOT to see my team win a WS every year. First of all, just being realistic and not living in a fantasy land, that's impossible for ANY team in ANY sport, even for the biggest market teams. What you CAN TRY TO DO, best you are able, is put together a competitive team to try and win, reach the playoffs, and see what happens. And while that goal is much easier for the Yankees, Dodgers, etc, than teams like the Twins, it doesn't mean you can't TRY for viability and sustainability knowing full well some years are just not going to be your year.

When you read the entire quote as offered by Falvey, nothing he says is wrong or inaccurate in any way. He speaks not only year to year, but also looking down the road. What he doesn't say but clearly implies is; the Twins don't believe in a 1yr window to blow up the payroll and the system through FA and trades for that singular year of hope. They clearly believe in a re-build of the system from the ground floor up and I think we've seen massive and even impressive changes along those lines. They believe in building a structure that allows a team to be competitive yearly...as much as possible...adding here and there when a window seems open...but understanding that not every year is going to have a large window. They also, clearly, don't believe in or want to take a "tank" approach to a re-build. And I like that approach! 

Now, we can easily agree to disagree in an "all in" 1yr approach. And that's fine. I understand and appreciate that approach. I'm just not personally in favor of blowing it up, waiting through a series of non-compeitive years, rebuild best you can, sign some expensive FA, trade young talent to vacate your system for additional pieces,and hope you win before starting all over again. I want my team to have a great system in place, develop young talent to add/replace on my roster, make some smart trades where and when applicable, and make a strong FA move or two when a window is open.

I DO believe that being patient can be smart and advantageous in many ways. But I also think our current FO needs to adjust and BE AGGRESSIVE year to year with an EARLY move that can make a difference.

It's very easy, IMO, to look back at each of these seasons and pick apart what worked and didn't work. It's also very easy to second guess what was done and not done at the time. And believe me, I've done that myself. To this moment, I have no real issue with how the FO handled 2021 INITIALLY. I felt really good with Happ as a  1yr 4th SP whose success previously could have seen him jump Pineda as the #3. I had no problem with Shoemaker as a cheap #5 option flier, who has had a limited career as being quite good when healthy, to compete with Dobnak and everyone else to at least begin the season. Hope was that a couple arms, besides the surprising Ober, would make an appearance later in the year. I was excited for Simmons as an outstanding SS with an OK bat to solidify the defense and help the staff. I wanted to spend a little more and keep May over adding Colome, but Colome had been very good and was coming off probably his career year. Again, 20/20 hindsight is different than how the plan was laid out.

I want to be very clear I am NOT impressed by what the FO has done this current off-season. Even if they were indeed surprised by how quickly things transpired, they are smart enough and experienced enough to have been able to navigate the deep end of the pool, jump in, and make at least ONE significant FA SP signing to offer greater viability to the staff and any sort of competitive opportunity in 2022. I had hoped for a pair of signings in the 3-4yr range that wouldn't break the bank. I felt doing so would STILL allow the promotion and audition of at least a handful of arms through a full season. So I'm a little frustrated/angry and confused by their approach at this point.

Unless they are planning on trading young talent for SP to add...which I find unlikely as they've worked so hard to build up the system for future viability and competition sake...I think the plan all along was to have a couple veteran arms to lead the way and roll through the collection of young arms on hand while having a quality lineup and pen. While I am absolutely not saying the Twins are any sort of contender at this point, I can see this approach potentially leading to an 88-92 win team who would at least have a chance to reach the playoffs. And history has shown...'87 Twins and '21 Braves as a couple examples...that anything could happen. 

Understand, I have no hopes for that kind of surprise at this moment. BUT, getting back to the original topic, is it too late to make changes? I say no, as long as the lockout doesn't extend too far. We're still 3 weeks from ST and at least they are talking. After that, yes, it will be a frenzy. I hope the FO is prepared to make a couple signings that are at least "decent" in nature and a trade or two that make sense. The one potential "big blow" to future plans is a prolonged interruption that keeps young guys on the 40 man away from the field. And we can never forget that we've had late surprises before.

But let's play in Rod Serling's Zone for a moment. There are a few really interesting RP options available to add to the pen to augment a healthy Rogers and company, with a plethora of options to roll through on the front side, to have a quality bullpen. DeJong could be had from the Cardinals on a potentially cheap trade to solidify SS for the sort term, pun only slightly intended. Assuming no major move to sign Rodon, there could be another Maeda/Odorizzi deal to add a solid SP to help lead the staff. They could also add someone like Pineda, or Kikuchi to the staff via FA. Maybe both. One provides some stability and one offers that and some upside still. And there will still be opportunity for the kids. And at least you're offering up what looks like a viable ML rotation.

Sorry I'm on a soapbox here, I just felt there was a lot to address. 

I don't think the FO is done. I believe we will see at least one FA SP and maybe two, barring a trade.. I believe we will see a solid RHRP signed. There wil be someone added to SS so Planco can stick at 2B. I think there is a good chance a 4th OF could be signed, and the potential for a surprise there, but banking on it. There's still time to make additions, whether surprising or OK. But I like the lineup, like the potential of the pen with an addition, and LOVE the idea of seeing ALL the young arms coming up. But somewhere, somehow, there needs to be a veteran arm or two added to this staff.

14 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

For starters, what happened 2 or 3 or 4 years ago is a different topic.

 

I have asked many times for people to give even a single example of below average revenue teams that sustained any success (reached the playoffs) that produced a significant portion of their WAR via free agency or specifically established / expensive free agents.

What happened in the last 2,3,4 years is how the twins got to were they are today. 0 playoff wins, and terrible 2021 season and a 2022 that looks like a rebuild season and huge question marks on 2023 at this point.

You have asked over and over again, and there are no examples, why because NO below average revenue team has ever sustained any success for more than a few years.

Milwaukee has been to 4 in a row, but only 2 others since 1983

Cleveland has been to 4 of the last 6 and 2 others since 2002

Tampa Bay as been to the playoffs 3 years in a row but missed the 5 previous years.

Oakland 3 of the last 5, after missing 3 years, after making it 3 years after missing 5 years.

The Twins have been in 3 of the last 5.

All this building though the draft not signing FA or not trading prospects is recency basis. 

What people are trying to say is that the Twins will be the first team in history to have sustained playoff success doing it this.

5 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm just trying to follow along at home but I'm finding the potential definitions blurry. 

With all respect I have to ask for clarity. 

What qualifies as "Sustained Playoff Success" and which teams qualify for that designation? 

 

 

I guess mine is pretty much being in the playoffs almost every year for a decade or so, but never missing more than one year in a row or having a run of 5 or 6 missing two years and rattling off another run. Having a bad year here and there happens, but sustained success IMO means you are right back the next year.

And actually being favored in a game or series would be nice as well, as opposed to being a speed bump.

2 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

What happened in the last 2,3,4 years is how the twins got to were they are today. 0 playoff wins, and terrible 2021 season and a 2022 that looks like a rebuild season and huge question marks on 2023 at this point.

You have asked over and over again, and there are no examples, why because NO below average revenue team has ever sustained any success for more than a few years.

Milwaukee has been to 4 in a row, but only 2 others since 1983

Cleveland has been to 4 of the last 6 and 2 others since 2002

Tampa Bay as been to the playoffs 3 years in a row but missed the 5 previous years.

Oakland 3 of the last 5, after missing 3 years, after making it 3 years after missing 5 years.

The Twins have been in 3 of the last 5.

All this building though the draft not signing FA or not trading prospects is recency basis. 

What people are trying to say is that the Twins will be the first team in history to have sustained playoff success doing it this.

Oh.  I get it.  You have figured out something no team / no general manger / no front office in the history of baseball has ever been able to figure out.  Do you realize how absurd this statement is?  No below average revenue team has produced what you feel is sufficient to call sustained success so we should ignore the how the most successful teams are built.  If you had identified a more efficient / effective approach like Tampa has utilized this could potentially make sense.  However, your plan is to utilize the most inefficient practice of all for player acquisition.

The only teams that could claim sustained success are the Yankees and Dodgers who operate in an entirely different realm given their massive revenue advantage.  Even their history has clearly illustrated the value of building from within.  Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have  collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons.  The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively.  I don't know about you but I would seek to learn something from how Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa built their teams.

Players don't hit 600 and teams can't win 90 every season.  Expecting perfection or something close is not even remotely reasonable in this scenario.  Outperforming all mid and small market teams is a reasonable goal.  The acquisition practices that have led to success are an excellent indicator of best practice.  I made it even more direct by comparing the acquistion practices that produced playoff teams.  What makes sense is to study what practices have been utilized by the most successful teams.  You are suggesting we ignore the facts because they don't support your position.

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm just trying to follow along at home but I'm finding the potential definitions blurry. 

With all respect I have to ask for clarity. 

What qualifies as "Sustained Playoff Success" and which teams qualify for that designation? 

 

 

That's a pertinent question.  However, I have always framed this discussion in the context of playoff teams simply because that's the first goal.  Of course sustained success is ambiguous and basically impossible if the standard for sustained is relative to the Yankees and Dodgers.  Among below average revenue teams Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have  collectively produced (27) 90 wins seasons since 2000.  The Rockies / Marlins / Padres / Orioles / Pirates and Royals have (8) 90 win seasons collectively.  Does sustained be consecutive seasons or relative success over several years.  I don't know about you but semantics aside I would opt for the 3 teams that produced (27) 90 win seasons over the (6) that produced 8.

I think they will have to be more aggressive after the CBA, but I do not mind waiting until after the CBA to make FA signing moves.  We do not know what the CBA will look like and how that may affect contracts going forward.  The owners and players were so far apart on ideas it would be hard to think the status quo is going to happen.  We will see how they act coming out after the lock out ends, when it ends.