Major League Ready

I don’t know how screwed up a team has to be before we should accept they are not in a window but how anyone can conclude we are just a player away from contending with NY, Boston, Houston, and Cleveland. We have one proven SP that will be here after next year, the bullpen is a mess and the guys who were supposed to be our superstars are in the minors. Yes, lets trade away or top prospects for a catcher that will be here for 2 years and hope all of what ails this team will be fixed by opening day next year. Who cares if trading away those top prospects could result in continued futility for several years. Let’s go all-in on next year. We have control of the core players through 2021-2022. This team can also afford to keep Berrios and one of Buxton or Sano if we have cheap talent like Kirriloff, Lewis, Graterol, etc coming on board as the price of some of our core players goes up. Managing our assets to be all-in on a 2 year window is a very bad idea. I would prefer a plan that at least has a chance of sustained success. Luckily, Falvey and Levine have been very consistent in their message that sustainability is a primary objective so I trust we won't see them pushing all their chips in, especially when we have a bad hand. You can't bluff when there are several great teams that are set-up for long-term success.

They were having better ABs the last couple innings. I think taking him out was motivated by making sure his confidence remained in tact. It was a good outing to build on and that was more important than getting one more inning.

We are not as far apart as it may seem. My primary point is that the answer is getting better at acquisition and development of young talent. The secondary point is that short-term assets like Gibson can't possibly factor in to long-term success. They are gone after next season. If there is a 3rd point to be made here that would be the financial realities of being a mid market team. Fielding young talent is essential to the ability to retain talent and extend a winning window or to have the capacity to add free agents. You don't resign Escobar when you have Gordon ready to take his place. Assuming you pay market value, you fill that role with a league minimum player and add a player of equal value to Escobar that fills a need. Then, the next question is what do we get for Gibby. I think he has proven he is a different player starting the 2nd half of last year. Maybe the market won't see it that way. I am with you if that's the case. Why trade him for a guy who projects to be a back of the rotation SP. We have quite a few of those guys. If you can get a guy like Sheffield or better, that trade should contribute to winning for several years. It's not a good idea to pass on the chance to add that type of asset because we want so badly for next year 's team to be better. That's a good way to remain bad. We are also caught in a wait and see mode. We have a number of pieces that COULD come together but that's a lot of "ifs". So, it does not make sense to press reset but I suggest we take advantage of any opportunities to add assets while we wait to see what happens with Buxton, Sano, and even Romero. Will Rooker become part of the solution in the next year? Will Gordon prove to be part of the solution. Is Polanco the player we saw the last half of 2017 or was that aided by PEDs. That's alot to figure out so let's not forego opportunities to add more long-term help because if all the stars and moon aligh, we can be fringe contender next year.

I have not read the Fangraphs article but I think the $8M/WAR is the average cost of acquiring 1 WAR though free agency. This is used by many as a measure of value. Your post demonstrates that 1 WAR is not worth $8M. What this really tells us is that building through free agents has been a relatively poor strategy. Of course, there are some free agents (like Lester) that provide the final pieces to a contender. Let's hope the Twins spend the available money wisely and outperform the $8M/WAR productivity measure.

There is a very long list of things that need to be improved / sorted out before this team becomes a contender. The loss of Dozier and Mauer is just a start. Our two guys that were supposed to be the key guys are in the minor leagues, our bullpen is a mess, and most of the SPs are gone after next year. Why would we want to manage our assets based on the assumption ALL of these thjings are going to turn around next year? Managing this teams assets as if we are going to be a contender next year is the kind of blind faith driven by fanaticism. A guy that can produce for 6 years has waaaaay more value at this point than having Gibson for 1 more year. Go get a free agent SP next year. You have Berrios / Romero / Odorizzi / FA / and one of several others for the 5th spot. If you can get Sheffield from the Yankees or someone similar, in the next couple years your SP staff looks something like Berrios / Romero / Graterol / Sheffield and the FA if they are still here or one of Gonsalves / Thorpe / Stewart / etc.

That's why we have a lot of them. How is this relevant. Have you somehow come to the conclusion that all of the best teams are not built around prospects or do you think it was just luck? I am really curious to hear how you look at the construction of NY, Boston, Houston, and Cleveland and not conclude drafting and development or trades acquiring prospects without giving up key talent (Indians / NY) are the most important aspects of building a contender, especially for teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

For starters, keep in mind the point I was countering was that "prospects are fools gold". The focal point of my post was that NY, Boston, Houston and Cleveland are built primarily around prospects. It would appear you assumed I meant the prospects primarily came from trades which was not remotely close to the intended message. You apparently assumed when I said "I would add" there was a sell off component to rebuilding that meant it was the primary catalyst. I used KC as a specific example and the players netted in the Greinke trade. I am not sure how that indicates all the draft picks and international free agents were not the most important aspect of their rebuild. When you have our budget, draft or trading for prospects and developing them is crucial to being able to afford to retain them when we are in a window. It also provides the payroll room like we have next year to add free agents. People complained when we let Cuddyer go too. That compensation pick resulted in Berrios. It's easy to figure how to put the best possible team on the field next year which is often the focus of fans. Unfortunately, building a contender requires a long-term approach and the short-term focus of most fans is often detrimental to sustained success.

There are 4 incredibly elite teams right now in the AL. They were all built primarily around prospects. Obviously, the Yankees and Redsox used their considerable revenue advantage to add even more established talent. I would add that if you look at the rebuild of mid or small market teams there is generally a component of selling off top talent for prospects. KC traded Greinke for Cain and Escobar. Houston traded every player they had with any tenure. Their entire payroll got down to around $30M. Oakland amassed the best record over the past 25 years of any team outside the top 10 in revenue and better than some top 10 teams by trading very good players for prospects. Same is true in Basketball even though they have a salary cap. Front offices are evolving. They are hiring staff with the education and experience to use hard data and build operating models. The new FO is not going to follow sentiment. In the case of mid and small market teams they understand the financial realities that many fans simply will not accept. The FA market last year was witness to their understanding of building through prospects and the handful of incredibly good teams dominating MLB is glaring proof of the need to build around prospects. If the Twins or any other mid market team do a great job acquiring and developing prospects, they will have enough payroll to add (not keep) proven talent. They can't afford a JCS or to build an entire SP staff like Boston but they can add significant talent. You keep the talent once you are in a window of contention. To continue to look at this team as a contender is "fool's gold".

Mike, any professional has job demands that require preparation. When a non-athlete professional does not bother to prepare when ample time has been provided, the people accountable for the the organization are going to conclude that their level of commitment is not adequate. In this case, the demand is to eat healthy and exercise. Compared to what many of us need to do in preparation this is a absolute walk in the park and he had 5 months to do it. If there are medical reasons Sano that make it difficult to drop the weight that's a different issue but it's seems a very reasonable assumption the media would have reported it. So, what reasons other than he did not care enough to get in shape are reasonable alternatives?

Every team has let players go. There are many examples of considerably better players than those you have mentioned. We got Johan as a rule 5 players. Corey Kluber and the list is very long. To suggest this is a Twins thing is very uninformed.

Most fans of teams that play in a league with a cap come to understand the correlation to spending wisely and winning. Some baseball fans somehow can’t grasp that there is a practical limitation to what the team can spend. The “I don’t care because it’s not my money” position is a simplistic line of thought. Given the revenue advantage of the top teams, we should all be hoping for very wise spending on the part of the FO. This entire discussion is premature. This team might be in contention for the central division but we are far from contenders. NY, Boston and Houston are on a completely different level. Upgrading at Catcher won't change that much. The only way it makes sense for this team to be buyers is If the entire team improves dramatically by the deadline. If not, why spend a premium for mid-season additions? We have a lot of payroll dollars freeing up this off-season. Address the problem with those dollars instead of prospects, especially the kind of prospects it would take to get an elite Catcher.

I was basically saying the same thing as you have here. If you include 3 rounds for 15 years it's the equivalent of 45 years. I would take rounds 74-78 for 20 years and make it 100 years. Divide by the number of ML players produced. You could even project the probable war of a player picked. I don't like giving up the pick but none of us have any regard for the financial component. This is a business and that's the basis of this decision. Baseball fans understand and accept players treating it as a business but they often can't accept the teams making business decisions.

When you expand the comparison beyond #74 you are multiply the odds of getting a viable player by the number of rounds you are adding. So, no you can't look at successive rounds or anyone taken past #74 when evaluating the odds of getting a viable player at #74. It would only makes sense to compare all picks between 74-xxx if they were trading away a comparable number of picks. I would prefer they kept the pick but I also recognize they are running a business.

This sounds about right to me. Let him get a half season with Forth Meyers and hope he continues to excel at that level. Hopefully he is ready for AA early next year maybe even to begin the season. That would be awesome because that rapid ascension would suggest the ceiling we all hope for in Lewis.

I have worked with over well over 100 fortune 500 companies specifically managing infrastructure and asset strategies. Not one of them practices writing off an asset past it's useful life. Shareholders won't stand for that kind of foolishness and the the IRS has guidelines that prevent it. So, no "most businesses" are not happy to spread the cost beyond the assets useful life. It' also a horrible business practice. Let's spend money we don't have by creating a liability we will have to deal with long after the value of the asset has expired. Really bad idea.

You make a good point. I failed to take that into consideration. However, you did not mention the remainder of the post which was the primary point. It does not makes sense for the Twins to offer a similar deal at this point. IMO, what you have really done here is substantiate the Blackmon contract was probably ill-advised.

Another year of evaluating the potential replacements will put the team in a better position to determine what to do about Dozier at the end of this year. We would also have to pay him top dollar and 5 years to sign him now. There is no upside of signing the deal now. I would think they will also have a much better idea of the likelihood of Lewis sticking at SS. This is no small part of the decision. This team has a number of prospects that could (probably should) continue to elevate this team for the next few years. We don't need a Jacoby Ellsbury scenario of our own.

Dozier's OPS for the last 3 years = .751 / .886 / .856 Blackmon's OPS for the last 3 years = .797 / .933 / .1000 Plus CF vs 2B Is the team better in 2018 with Gordon at 2B and an additional 20M to spend on a FA, especially given Santana is gone next year? It really becomes a bad idea if Lewis sticks at SS. Polanco to 2B, Lewis at SS and 20M to spend on FAs 2019-2022. I love Dozier but let him go. Take the money coming off the books next year and lock up some of our core. If you get those guys locked up, we have some great additions in the wings. Romero and Gonsalves are close and Graterol is probably not far off either. Thorpe and Mejia add depth and Thorpe is a good candidate to jump up on prospects lists. Let's maintain the ability to keep the core around instead of spending the money required to keep them on players likely to decline. Let's lock some guys up next year on contract that won't require us to go to age 35 or 36.

Really great article. I try to watch the box scores for all of the farm teams to see if there is anyone that might break-out. This is a nice heads up on who to watch.

Gomez or even Jackson at the price they signed are good examples of what you are saying. Grossman would have brought something back (nothing great but something). My hope is that not signing these guys leaves room to sign Lynn or Cobb. Neither one of these guys are top of the rotation guys but still good assets and would give us good depth of solid starting pitching. We have not had that in a long time. It would be wonderful to have a problem of excess if we are so fortunate as to have Gibson, May, Sanchez or Hughes or a couple of them exceed expectations. I am sure we can find someone willing to take our excess for a decent return. Santana | Berrios | Odorizzi | Lynn | Gibson | Mejia | Hughes | Sanchez | Gonsalves | May - I like our odds of coming up with a solid rotation out of this group and maybe even having some trade assets at the deadline. I am not sure how we workout the roster issues but that seems to have a way of working out.

Gomez was a great value at $4M as was Jackson at 2/6M. It might be that they just don't want to give up on Kepler developing against LF pitching which I can get behind.

You are absolutely right Morrison had a career year but given the money we are talking it makes no sense to assume this decision had any bearing on them not signing a RH OFer. AT least Morrison is in his prime and its reasonable to believe last year was a break-out season. I also think it is a stretch to say their were multiple viable options available. The only guy you listed that was considered in the top 50 available free agents was Gomez. Gomez was good last year and he might have a couple good seasons left in him. Perhaps the front office did not believe in him or he simply might not have been interested in coming back here. I just not that as simple as there were several good options.

Gonzalez, is a LH hitter. I forgot about Jackson. He had a nice year last year and is still in his prime. That would have been a decent move but he is the only FA that would have move the needle. Gomez had a good year last year too but he was bad a couple years before that so I would not have cared for him. Holiday has been declining for about the last 5 years so I don't think he is a difference maker and Bautista had an OPS+ of 76 last year and will be 37 this year.

What free agent OFer other than Martinez would that describe?

It's pretty easy to calculate actual cost. What I am wondering is how they are forecasting and determining market value. Has there been a considerable gap in forecasted vs actual performance. Of course, this includes how long the player will add significant value. It seems like there was a tendency be overly optimistic. Does WAR even have any significant role in contract valuations. Honestly, I have never dig into it by it seems highly suspect. How accurate has Streamer been? I have never seen a metric this suspect used in any form of valuation in any other industry. Are we seeing an adjustment this year? There are more business school educated personnel in front offices now. There appears to be an adjustment in-process this season. Are the front offices finally recognizing the odds of defying aging and the cost of losing cost controlled players. It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out in coming weeks.