Major League Ready

I was listening to an interview with someone from the ray's FO last week on MLB radio. They asked him why the Ray's have been able to be so successful despite the revenue disadvantage. He said "we are willing to make unpopular decisions".

Do you think the best offer he had was $6M and the twins offered him $11M. Have you seen the absurd contracts this off-season? Then, think role not hole. Back-up to CF is very important. Back-up to 1B which could be significant if Kirilloff's injury delays his return or limits his playing time. Replacement for Kepler and defensive replacement. It's also notable that his lifetime splits against LH pitching are pretty close to RH pitching. Plus, this is a two-time all-star. I have no idea if he rebounds but there is obviously huge upside. Let's say the season goes the way most folks here are predicting, and he returns to form. Huge return at the deadline. I scratched my head at first but it's not too hard to see why they did this deal, especially if they are certain they can move Kepler. Add whatever return they get for Kepler to the plus side of the column, and it won't be scraps, this signing is not that hard to understand.

Here are the differences in our positions conceptionally … You view free agency as a crucial element of success. The angst over this on this site made me wonder just how big a role free agency has played in construction playoff teams with below average revenue. I have studied almost every 90+ win team since 2000 and I know that free agents outside the parameters you insist are crucial have been far more important to winning than a big name free agent. I also have learned that the overall impact is rather modest. Therefore, my desire to sign big free agents is situational while you are extremely invested in signing them no matter the circumstances. There were only 4 players that interested me because I knew Correa and turner would get a deal that did not make sense for the twins. Vazquez and Narvaez and of course they signed Vazquez. Then, I thought there was a chance Bogaerts would go for a reason sum. I was wrong. The last one was Rodon. Supporting for Rodon would need to be validated as much as possible by medicals. I know the risks but I would opt for the risk associated with Rodon for 6 years over the virtually inevitable failure for the last several years of any SS for the ages 35-41. They got one of the 4 and one of those were redundant. No way would I give Bogearts $280M and when a player wants to go the Yankees, we are not getting them. So, the difference is I look at the entire situation and accept we were not getting Rodon away from the Yankees and I don’t want Bogaerts or Correa at those contracts and you get bent out of shape because we did not sign a big name regardless of the circumstances. BTW ... There was one significant contract in the entire AL central and the White Sox traded away Hendricks in order to afford that contract. Demonstrating once again the rarity of these contracts in below average revenue teams and the limitations of relying on free agency.

Like when they signed Correa last year or when the Angels signed Ohtani. It just does not matter with a core like Cleveland has put together. How did they do it? They traded away established players and got several ML ready prospects.

Do you think anyone on the planet believes signing bad players is a good plan? I am pretty sure you know this has absolutely no relevance to my point whatsoever. Would they have been signing these players if they had developed a core that could contend. They had to sign cheap players because they had needed several mediocre free agents just to fill out the roster. Do you really want to debate that free agency can play anything more than a supplemental role at an average cost of $10M/WAR? If you had actually stopped to consider what I said .... They would never even consider these players had they developed an adequate core.

So it's a bad strategy but let's do it anyway because we failed to develop? Free agency is not an alternative to acquiring young talent via draft or trade. Free agency even in high revenue markets is a supplement. Without development, especially in below average markets, there is absolutely no chance of success. This fanatical focus on fixing the problem by signing free agents is incredibly misguided.

I offered no opinion as to the relative merit of the deals. You stated there was no such thing as an $11M prove it deal. I simply thought these contracts may suggest otherwise. Like it or not. Some of these guys get paid because they once performed at a very high level and teams take a shot hoping they rebound.

I have been an advocate of adding a top tier free agent starter this year. I have done so because they have the financial flexibility now and going forward. However, try taking a look at how those 2nd tier free agents have produced. At one point I constructed a table of all the free agent pitchers. There have been a couple lately that have worked out. However, suggesting 2nd tier free agents are a good strategy requires you don't know the history of such free. I guess everyone has forgotten that we had to have Corbin and Bumgardner. Johnny Cueto had one great year and then sucked, etc. Avoiding actions with a high probability of failure is not a problem in any context.

He hit 199 in 2021 and produced 4.2 WAR. I would be very happy with a repeat.

Ask me in September. If he does exactly what he did last year it's an F. However, this is a guy that has played at an elite level. He had a 986 OPS for 2019. He had a 638 OPS last year. Kepler was 666. It's not hard to imagine Gallo having the better offensive season than Max in 2023 and Gallo's positional flexibility (especially CF) has real value. If he bounces back even modestly and they get real value back for Kepler, this deal has the potential to look very different in September so I will reserve judgement for the time being.

When I first saw the announcement, I wondered if the calendar had rolled a head to April 1st. This deal makes no sense. There has to be other deals are already in the works. However, Verlander got a prove it deal after TJ for $25M and Bellinger just got $17.5M. Gallo once upon a time produced at a level that would pay $30M on a long deal, especially with his defense and flexibility. I think a big part of this is also Gallo's ability to back-fill CF.

Fair enough, anything is possible. It's widely reported teams have models to predict value that I assume are probability driven. Could it work out like Jeter? Sure and we don't have a large sample size of 8+ years deals that have run their course. What we do know is that Jeters deal was the only one that really worked out and it ended when he was 35. The remaining sample we have suggest these deals are an absolutely horrible idea. It's more likely according to history to go like Pujlos, Cabrera, Cano, Heyward. It's a lot less horrible for the Giants who could absorb his salary 4 or 5 times and still have the Twin's payroll capacity leftover. I think that's getting lost in this discussion.

Cavaco is my most hated move of this FO. Corbin Carroll was the best available according to multiple sources. He has 70 grade speed and a 65 hit tool. I had never saw him play but still couldn't believe they passed on him after ready the scouting reports. He is the #3 prospect in MLB and Cavaco is dead weight. What really adds insult to injury is that Carroll would be the perfect fit on this team because he could back-up Buxton with nearly the same defensive ability. Simply never understood Jay. I just figured the scouts must have seen something I could not. Stewart is understandable. That's the risk drafting a HS pitcher that high.

Dare to dream! I could believe in a different level of aggression because they would be at about $100M if they let Kepler go and paid Nola an AAV of $30M.

I hear ya but regression is more inevitable than injury. It will be Gray's age 34 season at the start of however many years he gets. Will he be effective when he loses a couple MPH off his fastball? He just does not impress me as a pitcher who will be effective at age 35+. Of course, I could be dead wrong. A lot depends on how much opportunity SWR and Varland get and of course how they look. Paddack plays into this as well. Where I know we agree is that we would both prefer to have Nola even if it meant filling out the rotation between Ryan / Ober / Paddack / Varland / SWR and Winder.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I am holding on to memories that are no longer accurate. I have no confidence Correa would have made a difference anytime soon. I would move Kepler and Maeda and then see how it goes this year with Wallner / Varland / SWR and perhaps Martin. Then, be ready to unload Gray at the trade deadline as well as Mahle if an extension is not in the cards because his health concerns or an inability to agree to terms. One of Polanco or Arraez also goes if a good return is available. That gives us all kinds of room to spend in 2024. Nola is a much better risk. Philly has a lot of big financial obligations, perhaps we can pry him away.

We don't differ greatly but the two of us have a different idea of the relative importance free agency plays into building a contender. You generally present it as an absolute necessity. People here lose their minds when we don't get big names. The facts are that other clubs have done a much better job than the twins while literally never signing a high dollar free agent. What they have done better than the twins historically is trade established players for near ready MLB talent. For example, Cleveland did not go through a lengthy rebuild. They traded established players they could not extend. Oakland has done this consistently as has Tampa. We are starting to see this with the Twins. Duran and Alcala are just starting to make an impact and we will see what the Berrios trade yields. It just does not matter what they do in free agency until they produce talent. Somewhat ironic is the fact that the better they produce talent, the more discretionary dollars they have to spend on free agents or better yet extensions which generally speaking are much more productive per dollar spent. IE. Ramirez vs Correa

No. Instead of getting better at the practices that have proven the most effective, let's follow strategies that have never been effective for teams in the bottom half of revenue. Perhaps we should more carefully examine what has worked for other teams. You say this approach but do you know the biggest difference between Cleveland / Tampa / Oaklands and Minnesota?

Wouldn’t it be more germane to ask if it makes sense for people without any experience running a $300M or larger company a formal education in finance and analytics to take the type of unwavering positions we see here. Shouldn’t the fact that most people even very skilled people have skills that have nothing to do with managing assets or operating models, cause some hesitation when assuming management must be incompetent if we disagree with their strategy. How many people on this site that have ever negotiated and signed an 8 contract much less a 9 figure contract. Very few have any experience putting together strategic plans, etc. Would it be better to not be incumbered with these experiences when evaluating these things within a different industry? Yet, your question is not addressed to those without experience. You ask what value is a lifetime of experience in other industries have if the product being sold happens to be baseball? Everyone gets to state their opinion on the internet. That's great. It's fun. Everyone should state their opinion. I have stated mine and I am quite aware that experience or education has no weight within this medium.

I said "allows small markets to compete with a fraction of the dollars." You have changed the context of an entire market which addresses the ability to compete not if one particular team has had the success you expect / demand. If you want to debate that point, fine let's debate the point I made instead of using this statement completely out of context. Try addressing the point I actually made. If free agency was efficient and effective would teams with half the payroll capacity have chance?

I guess I should have prefaced Maeda with "assuming he is healthy". They might wait until the deadline and establish he is healthy. Ideally, Paddack will be back by then and add some depth. Kepler has decent value. He is not fetching a good SP but there is value in other forms. Established players are traded for prospects far more often than they are traded for other established players and that's the form a trade for Kepler would likely take.

I did say the real world. I worked with a couple hundred of the fortune 1000. In that environment, anyone who was so financial inept as to believe a 30M expense with not return meant nothing would be gone very quickly. I fired a few myself but not once in my entire career did I ever meet someone with P&L responsibility for a 9 figure business that thought this way. You simply can't get the job with this depth of financial ineptitude. The good news is that these really bad deals and the general inefficiency of free agency allows small markets to compete with a fraction of the dollars.

Gray is an UFA after this year according to Spotrac.

Pay $12M of his salary and someone will take him.

Here is where I was going with this. let's say they do trade Kepler. They could end up substantially below their payroll capacity. Spending the payroll room on basically buying a prospect or two would be nice.