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

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

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.

Wow, project much? I haven't claimed to figured out anything, you are the one that has said that. I said low revenue teams haven't sustained success over an extended period, and you proved that pointing out low revenue teams that have went in cycles.

I am not and I believe nobody else has ever said the core of a team isn't based on what comes up though the farm. I have said when your window opens take advantage because it will close again fairly soon.

Since 2002 the Cleveland (been in one world series since the Twins last been in one, and 4 of their main starting pitchers didn't start in their organization) team has 7 90 wins season. (and 4 of them were in a row between 16 and 19)

Tampa Bay has 8 in their history - and they basically came in two 4 year runs (two world series and in their last one 2020, 3 of their main starters didn't start in their organization).

Oakland (who hasn't been to a world series since the Twins were last in one)has 10 since 2000, and 6 of them game between 2000-2006, which my math tells me they had 4 others, and both of them came back to back with 4 years between them.

This is the kind of success you are claiming?

The Twins have 6 since 2002. My point was when the Twins were in their cycle they should have done more to put them over the edge, not having Lewis, Duran, or another prospect or two wouldn't change much as of today (well except maybe hope)  probably the 2022 season, and maybe 2023 we have no idea.

15 hours ago, cHawk said:

Well, yes. They wouldn’t have extended Buxton if they did. They would’ve been shopping Donaldson too.

It took intervention on the part of ownership and a willingness from Buxton to sign a team friendly deal for the organization keep him. The FO was ready to move him at the deadline. I'm not sure his contract is indicative of anything. The Twins aren't getting a return for Donaldson, they'll literally have to pay another team to take him. As it stands, he's a solid stop gap until there's some clarity with Arraez/Miranda/Martin.

2022 has been labeled a "retool," "developmental year," "reset," ect. but that's with the caveat that they see massive returns from the prospect basket they've placed all their eggs in. Have they committed to a full blown rebuild? No. Have they set themselves up to do so? Yes. 

12 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

TwinsDR2021 provided his definition and I appreciate that for understanding of his goal.

Personally, I feel his bar is way too high because only a couple of teams would clear it.

My personal bar is also high in my opinion but quite lower in comparison. If the Twins could get to the point where they are playing games that matter in September every year... I'd be satisfied and I wouldn't be asking for much more

After looking more closely the Twins from 2001 to 2010, probably fit both of our definitions. Made the playoffs 6 times, with never missing more than two years in a row. Only once with less than 80 wins, and only twice not finishing in the top two in the division.

The last five years of the Twins have been close but two of the years were down and this year looks the same.

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

The definition of success is quite variable from individual to individual. It's a question that must be asked in order to understand the individual parameters. 

 

TwinsDR2021 provided his definition and I appreciate that for understanding of his goal.

Personally, I feel his bar is way too high because only a couple of teams would clear it.

My personal bar is also high in my opinion but quite lower in comparison. If the Twins could get to the point where they are playing games that matter in September every year... I'd be satisfied and I wouldn't be asking for much more (Other than a World Series title every once in awhile because I like parades). If I'm watching a game on September 28th and winning the game is edge of the seat extremely important for playoff implications or of course the Twins have already clinched... I'm satisfied. Then let's see how the ball bounces in the small sample size that is the playoffs. 

You and I agree that you must get in the first door (Making the Playoffs) first and currently 10 out of 30 teams (that are all trying) make it each year. 

There are different sources that are all important when it comes to the players that make up a competitive roster. Free Agency can't be ignored, trades are vital, the farm system is critical. None of these avenues should be ignored but in my opinion, there is only one thing that will clearly help a front office reach the playoffs consistently. That is development. You have to increase value of the players who dot your roster no matter how they are acquired. 

Trades for example. Development is still critical in every trade you make and perhaps the most important thing. It seems to me that trades these days could almost be automated (I said almost). Each player has a value that all 30 teams basically agree with. Trading teams will match up assessed value and a deal is struck and we as fans get to sit back and judge subjectively, however, while we are judging, there is really nothing to judge, the value was most likely equal when the trade occured and probably considered equal by all 30 teams using the same value system. If players were cars you could basically stick a monroney sticker on them. This player has 80,000 miles, AWD, Adaptive Cruise Control, Heated Steering Wheel and is priced at $37,890.

The only way a team can ensure that they win the majority of trades that they make is by developing the player or players acquired and therefore increasing the value of who was acquired beyond the equal value that the trade originated at. If they can't increase the value of the acquisitions, they will be the loser in the deal when history and hindsight come a calling.  

The Dodgers have money but they got the increasing the value of their players thing down so they could do it without the money in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, Money is extremely helpful but the biggest gift that money provides is the ability to absorb the David Price and Jacoby Ellsbury contracts and not be crippled by the bad money draining the good money pool. 

 

I have no objection to anything you have said.  This all stems from a long series of posts in different threads where people insist a given approach is necessary to reach the playoffs.  Ok, show me examples where this approach has succeeded.  More importantly, they insist the FO is incompetent because they won't follow the approach they prescribe.  I have done the research and I am not guessing in terms of how these teams were built which is why I ask people to give examples of success if they are going to insist the FO is incompetent.  Show me where big free agent acquisitions, especially more than 1 have led to playoff success for a below ave revenue team.  The fact is that success among this subset of teams has been by far most influenced by players that were drafted follow by players acquired as prospects (generally meaning they traded established players to get them) followed by modest priced free agents.  High-end free agents and trades for well-establish players are a very small part in comparison.  So, when someone insists what we need to do is follow practices that have proven to be ineffective and the FO is incompetent, I think it's reasonable to ask for some empirical proof of concept.

51 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm under the impression that these days, opinions are more likely to harden than change and I include myself when I say that. 

Personally, like most people, I like it when the research that I do ends up supporting the conclusion that I had already drawn before I started researching. ?

Those walls just don't come down no matter how hard you put a shoulder into it. The shoulder usually gives out first. ?

You make an undeniable point which I fully understood long before these threads about this CBA illustrated your point.  However, it does depend on the environment.   I spent a dozen years doing corporate reorgs which is why I so obnoxiously don't except these refusals to address the facts.  In that environment the facts get thoroughly researched and vetted and the assumptions fully validated.   Holding on to positions that are not supported by the facts is simply not accepted.  You either get on board or get run over.  I don't have a problem when the issue is people are unaware of the issues / facts.  In this case, the facts are about as clear as it gets.  They are in the form of specific demands.  The implications / conclusions always have room to be debated but obviously not a single person here would try to suggest the terms were not detrimental to parity.  This sort of refusal to address the facts never leads to harmony so pardon me for being a prick about it.  Putting your shoulder to the wall is not a good way to earn respect or resolve any issues in any any context / environment.