Major League Ready

Fangraphs has his hit tool rated at 60 and MLB.com at 65.

Spotract has them at 143.6M. I come up with $146.4M. Starters SALARY 1 Sonny Gray 12,700,000 2 Tyler Mahle 10,000,000 3 Joe Ryan 740,000 4 Bailey Ober 740,000 5 Josh Winder 740,000 Relief Pitchers 7 Jorge Lopez 3,500,000 8 Jhoan Duran 740,000 9 Jorge Alcala 900,000 10 Griffin Jax 740,000 11 Caleb Thielbar 2,700,000 12 Jovanni Moran 740,000 13 Emilio Pagan 2,500,000 Catchers 14 Ryan Jeffers 740,000 15 Christian Vazquez 10,000,000 Infielders 16 Alex Kirilloff 740,000 17 Jorge Polanco 7,500,000 18 Jose Miranda 740,000 19 Carlos Correa 33,333,000 20 Luis Arraez 5,000,000 21 Kyle Farmer 5,000,000 Outfielders 22 Max Kepler 8,500,000 23 Byron Buxton 15,000,000 24 Trevor Larnach 740,000 25 Nick Gordon 740,000 26 Joey Gallo 11,000,000 Randy Dobnak 1,500,000 Kenta Maeda 6,000,000 Kyle Garlick 750,000 Chris Paddack 2,400,000 TOTAL PAYROLL 146,423,000

All VERY GOOD points but the merit of these points is disregarded for people who just want to bitch. Anyone who does not understand that the efforts/practices you describe are standard operating procedure for literally every team is simply not paying attention. Some (like the Astros) have been better at it than others. The irony is not doing it would be incompetent. Yet, some still feel the need to insist this is part of the incompetence of this FO.

It won't be an impediment to extending other players if their pitching prospects can fill 4 or all 5 spots in the rotation. The limitation is they can't sign an expensive pitcher and extend other players. Hard to pass on a deal like this for a player as good as Correa.

Actually, Oakland has been better than Tampa. Two more 90 win seasons and a considerably better win percentage. Cleveland has a little more to spend. They also have 2 more 90-win seasons. Reds / Brewers / Rockies / Orioles / Pirates / Marlins / Padres / Blue Jays and Royals all have 3 or less. Phillies / Tigers / White Sox / and Mets all have four. The difference is not just drafting and development. If you look at these three teams, they have acquired almost as much productivity through trading established players for prospects as they have from drafted players. We can do what they do and use the $50M revenue advantage we have to sign one big player or extend 2-3 players above what Tampa or Oakland could do.

Lots of front offices sign expensive players. The VAST majority of those front offices are generally in markets that produce a lot of revenue. Just look back at the percentage of those free agents that went to the top 10 revenue markets. How many school teachers drive a 150K Land Rover?

That is one example but I was referring to the As, Ray's and Guardians who have (28) 90+ win seasons since the turn of the century. The Blue Jays have 3, one with Springer so that's 28:1 for teams that did not have a free agent with 1/2 the contract. It's obviously a boost if a team can sign a top free agent. Somewhat ironically, the enabling factor for any team in the bottom half of revenue is their ability to produce ML talent. One major talent is useless without a team around them. Signing elite free agents is not crucial at all if you can develop talent and then use what would be free agent budget to extend them at a better value than possible in free agency. The fact that we have not been as good as Tampa at developing talent does not make free agency a solution. Relying on free agency is asking to fail. Get better at practices that yield better results instead of pursuing practices with very little chance of success.

Crucial? The three most successful teams (by far) in the bottom half of revenue have never signed a free agent for more than $70M. People keep saying it's crucial while never providing any examples of teams with equal or less revenue signing elite free agents and going on to success.

$150M or $200M would do little to resolve the root problem. The Twins have half the revenue of the top team's and that disparity is still going to exist even if baseball revenues continue to grow. Those top team's will continue to have the same relative ability to absorb these contracts. We also have 5 years before there will be an opportunity to change the system. Therefore, there is absolutely no chance the current system is changed for the first half of a deal with Correa. Then, we should recognize that we already had great disparity and the league gave into player demands to increase that disparity in the last CBA. Based on what we witnessed this past year in terms of the CBA, what would make you think the players would accept a salary cap or enhanced revenue sharing. I see no way that happens without a prolonged strike.

Great point! Extending what you have is a FAR more effective practice than signing free agents. Obviously, those deals have varied returns just like free agents, but the return has been far greater per dollar spent and the extensions generally are not taking players to age 40. Therefore, they are not only more productive early, but they also don't have the huge downside at the end of the deal. Correa is a great way to be better this season but there will definitely be a long-term cost, especially in the last half of the contract. There have only been 10 of these 8+ year deals with position players. The list below shows the average WAR for the last half of all previous 8+ year contracts. Not the last couple years but the last half. The only one of these deals that worked out was Derek Jeter and he was 35 at the end of the contract. Eight of the ten averaged less than 1 WAR/year for the last half of the contract. If you are a team that can sign 5 contracts like Correa and have the twins budget left over, you can afford to make these deals. It's entirely another matter for a team with a $150M (roughly) ceiling to sign a deal that very likely prohibits them from signing extensions, especially given the number of candidates Ending fWAR bWAR Age Derek Jeter 4.42 4.16 36 Dave Winfield 1.98 2.22 38 Joey Votto 0.82 0.92 39 Alex Rodriguez 0.77 0.64 40 Robinson Cano 0.18 0.22 41 Albert Pujlos 0.15 0.21 42 Jason Hayward -0.05 0.30 33 Miguel Cabrera 0.33 -0.27 40 Prince Fileder -0.18 -0.18 36 Eric Hosmer 0.03 0.00 37 Average 0.84 0.82 38.20

Correa to the Mets looking less likely. Tweet from Cohen

He has 2 Milb options. What makes you think he will be on the 26-man roster unless he is performing well at AAA?

Correa only represents 25% of payroll if the team does not spend anywhere near their payroll capacity. If they only were willing to spend $85M should we accept the argument he would be one-third of payroll? Of course not, the whole idea of this metric is to measure the impact of a single player’s salary on the teams ability to fill out a roster. In other words, their capacity to spend. Therefore, it should be measured against their payroll capacity not actual spending. He would be 25% if they only spend $110M with the contract they were reported to have offered. If we measure against an estimated capacity of $150M, he represents 18%. Do they have more or less capacity to spend on other players when they are at $110M (25%) or at $150M where he would represent 19%. Obviously, they would have $40M available with him representing 25% of payroll. That’s why this metric needs to be calculated against payroll capacity. The percentage makes no sense at a random point below payroll capacity. Obviously, capacity varies based on revenue swings so it’s always an estimate.

They signed a grand total of (1) one-year contract. In other words, they may have been on this path in the past but they certainly are not remotely in the same place as when they signed all the players listed. Seems more like a complaint about the past without recognition of being better positioned today.

They are on the road leading from a previous core that just was not nearly good enough. They jettisoned most of them and are basically left with Buxton and Polanco. The entire rest of the team are guys with less than 2 years of service time. That road might go nowhere. It might also lead to a solid rotation of Ryan / Varland / SWR and Ober all inexpensive and under teams control for several years. That scenario leaves lots of money to add another top of the rotation SP through free agency. Prielipp and Festa might just provide incredible depth. The position players might all bust. It might also lead to Kirilloff and Miranda being well above average and maybe even some all-star years between them. Lewis and Lee might bust but probably not. Those two have higher upsides than Kirilloff and Miranda. Gordon and Martin might be mediocre but they could very well be an outstand duo as super utility players. Larnach and Wallner might bust or be 40 HR guys and Rodriquez might just be a superstar. They on the same road Chicago was on not so long ago which is the same road every team travels with the exception of ultra-high revenue teams. This road could lead to nowhere, but I like the odds of it leading somewhere pretty good and this time the trip has a good chance of remaining somewhere good for quite a few years.

I was pondering if he would be #1 or #2 behind Varland. Then, somehow, I managed to forget to mention him. Of course, the big question is how much time will he miss? Who knows maybe Martin will follow the Miranda script and give us all a very pleasant surprise.

I don't see any of these five as the most probable. Do we no longer consider Varland and SWR prospects. Those two would be the most probable IMO. Would love for the Balazovic prediction to come through but he gave us little reason to believe last year. Festa is too far down the depth chart as he is behind Varland and SWR. Same question for Wallner. He has not lost prospect status after 65 abs, right? Martin is also more likely to get a shot than Julien because of his defensive versatility unless Polanco has a prolonged injury. I don't see Lee getting here soon either.

Very true. I just find it a lot more fun to be an optimistic fan. Plus, the only way any modest revenue team has any chance is dependent an optimistic outcome.

My recollection is that Prielipp was considered a top 10 maybe even top 5 kind of pick before he went down with Tommy John. We are due and Prielipp has a shot at being the top of the rotation guy we have been waiting. That ceiling is likely why he is getting recognition.

Gray / Mahle / Ryan / Ober / Maeda / Varland / SWR / Paddack / Winder / Dobnak At some point it's time to invest innings in guys that will, negate any need to sign guys like Wacha for the next several years. Signing Wacha with Varland and SWR ready with at least 5 guys ahead of them makes no sense. Those two guys should be given a chance. With a little Luck Winder or Dobnak will earn a shot too.

I read the poll and thought the exact same thing. How they progress and most specifically how much the young core develops is the basis of evaluation for me. SWR and Varland really stepping up would be so huge going forward that would be much more important than extending Gray / Mahle or Maeda. At this point I have no idea if I would want to extend them, especially Maeda and Gray given their age. The much better scenario is Ryan / Ober / Varland / SWR and Paddack all pitch well. Then instead of extending a good but not great pitcher, they finally land a big fish like Nola. Having 4 or 5 cheap starters would make that more financially feasible than it was in the past. What if we win 92 games and Cleveland wins 93. Is not winning the division a meaningful measure? What if they are 5 games below 500 at the halfway point and play 15 games over the last half lead by the development of Miranda / Lewis / Kirilloff / Larnach / Wallner / Julien and Martin as well as the pitchers mentioned above.

Mike is right. I would add that even the big markets have to develop talent. The Dodgers, Astros, have been great a developing talent. The Red Sox and Cardinals had a run too. Those are the only big market teams that have compiled more 90 win seasons. The Phillies, Mets, and Tigers have not. Neither have the Giants of late which is why they are rather desperately trying to buy a team. The White Sox and Jays had not developed talent until lately. The Twins have not drafted / produced as much well-above average talent. They also have not made the Berrios type trades nearly as often as Cleveland, Oakland and Tampa. It might be fair to say they just have not those types of players that can bring back the long list of very good players that have made these 3 teams very good. The draft unraveled nicely for us last year and then we got lucky this year. Let's hope a bunch of this young talent comes together this year and we can have an extended run of good teams.

I had just graduated from college. It was great but no way in hell as a fan would I trade KC's 25 years of futility with one 90 win season for what Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa have provided in terms of a quality team to watch. If a WS is all that matters to you, that's your prerogative. I won't get that wrapped up in a goal that should be expected to be achieved once every 30 years if we get our prorated share. Give me a 90+ win team as often as possible and I will take my chances in October. BTW .... The Blue Jays / Phillies / Tigers / White Sox / Mets / Reds / Brewers / Rockies / Orioles / Pirates / Marlins and Padres have all had 4 or less 90-win seasons this century. The big market teams simply have a huge advantage.

That's fair. We definitely have a different definition of success. I collected data since the turn of the century. Success can't be defined in one season for me. I watch 100+ games every year and I want to see a good product as many years as possible. Since the turn of the century, the Royals have had one 90 win season and they have the lowest win percentage in all of MLB. Oakland has (10) 90-win seasons and the 4th best winning percentage in MLB. Cleveland also has (10) 90-win seasons. Tampa has 8. It's not even remotely close for me. 3 weeks of a successful playoff run is not preferable to 20 years of watching a miserable team.

You only see what you want to see. Berrios "level" since being traded has been below replacement level. Gray is the only reasonable example of them replacing Berrios given the timeframe and circumstances and he was far better than Berrios. Going forward, who knows but Berrios level so far is below Chris Archer. Louie Varland provided .9 more bWAR in a handful of starts. They added all of those other players in a misguided attempt to win the division and they would have not been in any better position if they had Berrios last year given his performance. If I were to describe the impact of trading Berrios to date, he cost us absolutely nothing in terms of contributing to winning. Long-term, we exchanged Chase Petty for SWR and Austin Martin and roughly $21M year which obviously can be spent elsewhere. I like their odds of getting equivalent value out of the $105M and I would trade SWR and Martin for Petty in a heartbeat at this point.