PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Walters: Twins to Seek Free Agents "Within Budget"



East Coast Twin
08-01-2012, 06:30 PM
http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_21208869/shooter-now-minnesota-twins-seek-free-agents-owner

Shooter quotes Jim Pohlad:

Pohlad said the Twins . . . will be able to afford some free agents. The Twins' payroll this season is about $100 million.

"We're happy at the level (of payroll) we're at right now," the Twins CEO said.


Regarding Ron Gardenhire returning next year:

"I always reserve the right to change our mind, but I can't imagine that," Pohlad said. "I love him as our manager."



Regarding Terry Ryan returning as GM:

Ryan is technically the interim GM and has said it's too early to decide whether he will stay in the role. Pohlad said he would be "surprised" if Ryan doesn't remain.

Highabove
08-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Well, if this is true, some good things can be done in the off season with the current financial commitment.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-01-2012, 10:07 PM
If the payroll stays at 100 million, that gives them at least 25 mil to spend, trading Carroll (3.5 mil), cutting Casilla (2 mil), or trading Span (5 mil?) would free up even more.

That is plenty of money to "make a splash" in free agency. Hell, Ryan was able to take 10 million and sign Doumit and Willingham this off-season.

TKGuy
08-01-2012, 10:14 PM
That's great to hear, but TR is not going to spend just to spend. We will have more coming off after 2013. I like what TR is doing, although I'm probably in the minority.

Winston Smith
08-01-2012, 10:34 PM
They have 67m in contracts for next yr with Nishi and the Capps option. 8 players without those two guys so they'll need to fill out 17 players with the balance of 23-33m. We have no idea if the payroll will be 90 or 100, guessing the final cash flow will tell that. Not really a lot of room for 8-10m contracts with that many guys fitting into what's left.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-01-2012, 10:37 PM
That's great to hear, but TR is not going to spend just to spend. We will have
more coming off after 2013. I like what TR is doing, although I'm probably in the minority.'

Agreed, I don't think he should spend just to spend. But if you can find another Willingham type signing (for an SP) then give them a 2-3 year deal for a team friendly salary. If not, spend that money on 1 year deals. No such thing as a bad one year deal for the most part.

jokin
08-01-2012, 10:45 PM
http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_21208869/shooter-now-minnesota-twins-seek-free-agents-owner

Shooter quotes Jim Pohlad:

Pohlad said the Twins . . . will be able to afford some free agents. The Twins' payroll this season is about $100 million.

"We're happy at the level (of payroll) we're at right now," the Twins CEO said.




The payroll qualifier number is a bit deceiving, it never was "about $100 million", actually closer to $92-94M. As I posted previously, according to the current roster salary quotes on ESPN and assuming the DLers, Capps and Pavano are gone by season's end, Pohlad could mean he's happy "at the level of payroll we're at right now" - which (counting Nishioka) is NOT $100M, it is, in fact, $85M.

I wouldn't put it past this organization to come in around this number. It would still leave some room for FAs, but not enough for a top pitcher, they would still have to trade another big salary or two to "afford some (ie, more than one) free agents".

jokin
08-01-2012, 10:49 PM
'

Agreed, I don't think he should spend just to spend. But if you can find another Willingham type signing (for an SP) then give them a 2-3 year deal for a team friendly salary. If not, spend that money on 1 year deals. No such thing as a bad one year deal for the most part.

Right. The Twins need low-risk, bridge-type deals. You put yourself in position to flip mid-season, tender or re-sign- Jackson, Maholm and Bedard were good examples this year. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Willingham-type SPs out there, but it certainly is possible.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-01-2012, 10:55 PM
Right. The Twins need low-risk, bridge-type deals. You put yourself in position to flip mid-season, tender or re-sign- Jackson, Maholm and Bedard were good examples this year. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Willingham-type SPs out there, but it certainly is possible.
I'm sure someone will fall through the cracks like they usually do.
It should also be pointed out that if they trade a guy like Span they could bring back a legit SP that still has 3+ years of team control (basically no real cost to the team in 2013)


Perhaps we could be on the other end of a Garza/Young swap this time. (Not saying we will get someone with as high of an upside as Garza) but getting a solid young pitcher back for Span shouldn't be out of the question. I sorta wonder if the Rangers will be desperate for OF after this season once they inevitably lose Hamilton.

johnnydakota
08-01-2012, 11:10 PM
we have seen to many on the cheap signings for washed up pitchers...go big or stay home ..if we arnt all in trade off everyone including no trade claus joe mauer....

YourHouseIsMyHouse
08-01-2012, 11:10 PM
Please get rid of TR. Gardy is an icon so I don't mind him :D. I'd like to have a younger GM who has new school ways. The Twins should dig through the Rays and Pirates organizations for some different management. The Twins NEED fresh faces going forward.

one_eyed_jack
08-01-2012, 11:15 PM
Interesting, but you can't read too much into soundbites.

Terry Ryan has a tough row to hoe in figuring out a starting rotation for 2013. He'll have some money to spend, nobody know exactly how much yet, but I expect a free agent or two. Since he needs quantity at least as much as quality, I expect he'll wait until the biggest names are gone, then go sorting through the bargain bin again. Hopefully with better results than Jason Marquis.

The wildcard in this whole thing is Morneau. Does he get traded for pitching, or to free up money to sign a starting pitcher?

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-01-2012, 11:35 PM
we have seen to many on the cheap signings for washed up pitchers...go big or stay home ..if we arnt all in trade off everyone including no trade claus joe mauer....D
Do you speak english?

CDog
08-01-2012, 11:46 PM
"at the level of payroll we're at right now" - which (counting Nishioka) is NOT $100M, it is, in fact, $85M.

Could you show your work there? I suppose I could look some stuff up, but I don't think I've seen anyone use that number even though there is a little bit of variation based on "who counts."

ashburyjohn
08-01-2012, 11:50 PM
I expect he'll wait until the biggest names are gone, then go sorting through the bargain bin again. Hopefully with better results than Jason Marquis.

I'm no master negotiator, but I would think that an early and time-limited competitive offer (on the low side) to a second tier free agent would be more likely to work well than having to operate under scarcity later on when other options have signed elsewhere.

jokin
08-01-2012, 11:57 PM
Could you show your work there? I suppose I could look some stuff up, but I don't think I've seen anyone use that number even though there is a little bit of variation based on "who counts."

Get out your calculator. Add Nishi, subtract their overestimation of Morneau ($15M).

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/roster/_/name/min/minnesota-twins

jokin
08-02-2012, 12:00 AM
Please get rid of TR. Gardy is an icon so I don't mind him :D. I'd like to have a younger GM who has new school ways. The Twins should dig through the Rays and Pirates organizations for some different management. The Twins NEED fresh faces going forward.

I proposed just this earlier this spring. The Rays Matt Arnold would be a great young hire, highly educated with a demonstrated level of success finding talent, just add in a couple of seasoned vets to lend him a hand and the Twins could head in a fresh, new direction.

CDog
08-02-2012, 12:09 AM
Get out your calculator. Add Nishi, subtract their overestimation of Morneau ($15M).

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/roster/_/name/min/minnesota-twins

No Baker on there (6.5) nor 2/3 of Liriano (3.7). Without the several "N/A" which are almost/all minimums on that list (but there are nine of them on the major league team now...not all have been there all year, but then Parmalee and some others aren't on there now), those two included get over $91M. Marquis gets it over $94M. I guess you could make the case Baker and Marquis don't belong on there, but Liriano almost certainly does. Some others that may "count" to some folks I think, too, that aren't on that list like Zumaya. Muddled point I know, but the shorter more concise version is "there's stuff not included in that $85 that should be."

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-02-2012, 12:22 AM
The payroll qualifier number is a bit deceiving, it never was "about $100 million", actually closer to $92-94M. As I posted previously, according to the current roster salary quotes on ESPN and assuming the DLers, Capps and Pavano are gone by season's end, Pohlad could mean he's happy "at the level of payroll we're at right now" - which (counting Nishioka) is NOT $100M, it is, in fact, $85M.


Yeah.... you are completely wrong:
As per Cot's, which has a lot more credibility then a random message board poster here ya go:
http://i46.tinypic.com/wyz5.png
100 mil for 2012.

Here is the specific breakdown for this year, (Zumaya was cut off FWIW)

http://i45.tinypic.com/34e4yv9.png

old nurse
08-02-2012, 01:04 AM
'

Agreed, I don't think he should spend just to spend. But if you can find another Willingham type signing (for an SP) then give them a 2-3 year deal for a team friendly salary. If not, spend that money on 1 year deals. No such thing as a bad one year deal for the most part.

Marquis, Ponson, Livan Hernandez, Mike Lamb? Who else did they sign for a year?
Good one year deal for the Twins? Morris.
Orlando Hudson was neither good nor bad.
Zumaya was a gamble that they lost on. I think is was worth the shot even though they lost. Jeff Gray I think was only intended to be filler for a year, thus not bad.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-02-2012, 01:07 AM
Marquis, Ponson, Livan Hernandez, Mike Lamb? Who else did they sign for a year?
Good one year deal for the Twins? Morris.

Recent history: Doumit

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:13 AM
Yeah.... you are completely wrong:
As per Cot's, which has a lot more credibility then a random message board poster here ya go:
http://i46.tinypic.com/wyz5.png
100 mil for 2012.

Here is the specific breakdown for this year, (Zumaya was cut off FWIW)

http://i45.tinypic.com/34e4yv9.png

Talk about jumping the gun with apples and oranges and outdated information, Marquis and Liriano are also cut off from your declarative statement. If you would have bothered to take the time to check the current ACTIVE PLAYER ESPN roster, not including the DLers, this is what I was referring to, and I am surmising that might be a number that would be appealing to Pohlad in 2013, who according to his quote, appeared to be talking in the "present tense" with who is actually on the field. You can add the cost of the current 25-man active roster and what they currently are earning and extrapolate who will be gone this year or at season's end, it's not that difficult.

Regardless, if you check it, your printed Cot's list totals up to a current payroll of $90.0725M. Add $2M for the unlisted salaries of the bottom five, and that puts you at $92.0725M. Liriano gone (already tallied), Marquis gone (already tallied), Pavano, DL and gone, Baker, DL and gone, Capps DL and gone. This brings the payroll down to $72.825M with the Capps 2013 buyout included. Are the scheduled contract raises much more than $5M? I don't think so. That puts the projected payroll for a stand-pat team at ~$77.5M. Obviously, they will attempt to replace the pitching losses via trade or Free Agency. I don't see how they get there without another big salary dump trade or two.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-02-2012, 01:22 AM
Talk about jumping the gun with apples and oranges and outdated information, Marquis and Liriano are also cut off from your declarative statement. If you would have bothered to take the time to check the current ACTIVE PLAYER ESPN roster, not including the DLers, this is what I was referring to, and I am surmising that might be a number that would be appealing to Pohlad in 2013, who according to his quote, appeared to be talking in the "present tense" with who is actually on the field. You can add the cost of the current 25-man active roster and what they currently are earning and extrapolate who will be gone this year or at season's end, it's not that difficult.

Regardless, if you check it, your printed Cot's list totals up to a current payroll of $90.0725M. Add $2M for the unlisted salaries of the bottom five, and that puts you at $92.0725M. Liriano gone (already tallied), Marquis gone (already tallied), Pavano, DL and gone, Baker, DL and gone, Capps DL and gone. This brings the payroll down to $72.825M with the Capps 2013 buyout included. Are the scheduled contract raises much more than $5M? I don't think so. That puts the projected payroll for a stand-pat team at ~$77.5M. Obviously, they will attempt to replace the pitching losses via trade or Free Agency. I don't see how they get there without another big salary dump trade or two.

As per the first image:
2012 Salary: 100 million you dolt. They save approx 2 million with the Liriano trade. Nothing else was saved to this point. Christ, I feel bad for even spending the 2 minutes it took to respond to your iditoic post at this point. Hopefully now other posters can realize you spew nothing but bull****.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:22 AM
Muddled point I know, but the shorter more concise version is "there's stuff not included in that $85 that should be."

Muddled indeed. And with an operator like Pohlad who makes a living creating wiggle-room in every single word he utters, you have to take the worst case scenario- which is he likes the "payroll" as it currently stands with the active players on the field.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:25 AM
As per the first image:
2012 Salary: 100 million you dolt.

As always, the guy calling names is the loser in any discussion. You don't even try to come down from your swinging-obtusivity-chair to try to have a civil discussion- all for the glory in your own mind of "winning" a meaningless argument.

Nick Nelson
08-02-2012, 01:28 AM
Muddled indeed. And with an operator like Pohlad who makes a living creating wiggle-room in every single word he utters, you have to take the worst case scenario- which is he likes the "payroll" as it currently stands with the active players on the field.

You're being ridiculous. There's no way you can actually believe the things you're writing. You're ruining this thread with absurdity just cut it out. You don't have to jump to the most negative conclusion possible in every single situation.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:31 AM
As per the first image:
2012 Salary: 100 million you dolt. They save approx 2 million with the Liriano trade. Nothing else was saved to this point. Christ, I feel bad for even spending the 2 minutes it took to respond to your iditoic post at this point. Hopefully now other posters can realize you spew nothing but bull****.

Caught up with you and your edit. More of the same perjorative attack. You don't even have a scintilla of understanding of the original point I was making. I'll try one more time, Pohlad likes the payroll the way it is- right now- today- the rate at what the players currently on the roster are making. In Pohlad-speak, that might be the amount he would feel comfortable with going forward...

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:36 AM
You're being ridiculous. There's no way you can actually believe the things you're writing. You're ruining this thread with absurdity just cut it out. You don't have to jump to the most negative conclusion possible in every single situation.

Sorry to rain on the parade, this isn't an absurd conjecture at all. It is undeniable that there is already talk on background out there that the payroll might be cut further. The team itself has said they are committed to a set payroll based on a percentage of revenues. With the 20% or so drop in attendance this season (a trend that could easily grow worse after Labor Day), I believe that Twins managment could easily fulfill their own level of payroll commitment quite easily in that scenario- coupled with a likely drop in season ticket sales next year.

Nick Nelson
08-02-2012, 01:46 AM
Here are the two things we know from reading this article:

1) Pohlad said he is comfortable with where payroll is at now.

2) Walters wrote in the article, right next to that particular quote, that payroll for this year stands at around $100 million.

Now I would guess that as a veteran reporter, Walters had the sense to run this number by Pohlad while he was talking to him. And if Pohlad's response was some ridiculous nonsense about how the "current payroll" is actually the current amount they're currently paying to players currently on the 25-man roster extrapolated across a full season – well, Walters would have written that in the story.

Any conclusions you draw beyond the two items mentioned above are nothing but absurd conjecture.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:55 AM
Here are the two things we know from reading this article:

1) Pohlad said he is comfortable with where payroll is at now.

2) Walters wrote in the article, right next to that particular quote, that payroll for this year stands at around $100 million.

Now I would guess that as a veteran reporter, Walters had the sense to run this number by Pohlad while he was talking to him. And if Pohlad's response was some ridiculous nonsense about how the "current payroll" is actually the current amount they're currently paying to players currently on the 25-man roster extrapolated across a full season well, Walters would have written that in the story.

Any conclusions you draw beyond the two items mentioned above are nothing but absurd conjecture.

Charlie Walters is a veteran Twins baseballer first and reporter second. Charlie wrote the number next to the quote, why didn't he attempt to pin Pohlad down on a specific amount???--- or at least a ballpark figure. A good reporter doesn't leave all this wiggle room w/o trying to get more specifics on the "plan", in terms of dollars, going forward- that is the point of the story and the amount wasn't anywhere near nailed down. I am admittedly taking the worst-case scenario and I think I have evidence to at least anticipate the worst, so I won't be as disappointed when we end up with a AAA starting pitching lineup next year. (I noticed you haven't responded to the evidence I listed in my previous post, I'd love to hear your take on that.)

Pius Jefferson
08-02-2012, 01:56 AM
Please get rid of TR. Gardy is an icon so I don't mind him :D. I'd like to have a younger GM who has new school ways. The Twins should dig through the Rays and Pirates organizations for some different management. The Twins NEED fresh faces going forward.


The Twins GM needs to be dealt with this off-season. The Twins can't have an interim GM for two years.

USAFChief
08-02-2012, 02:35 AM
Talk about jumping the gun with apples and oranges and outdated information, Marquis and Liriano are also cut off from your declarative statement. If you would have bothered to take the time to check the current ACTIVE PLAYER ESPN roster, not including the DLers, this is what I was referring to, and I am surmising that might be a number that would be appealing to Pohlad in 2013, who according to his quote, appeared to be talking in the "present tense" with who is actually on the field. You can add the cost of the current 25-man active roster and what they currently are earning and extrapolate who will be gone this year or at season's end, it's not that difficult.

Regardless, if you check it, your printed Cot's list totals up to a current payroll of $90.0725M. Add $2M for the unlisted salaries of the bottom five, and that puts you at $92.0725M. Liriano gone (already tallied), Marquis gone (already tallied), Pavano, DL and gone, Baker, DL and gone, Capps DL and gone. This brings the payroll down to $72.825M with the Capps 2013 buyout included. Are the scheduled contract raises much more than $5M? I don't think so. That puts the projected payroll for a stand-pat team at ~$77.5M. Obviously, they will attempt to replace the pitching losses via trade or Free Agency. I don't see how they get there without another big salary dump trade or two.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that somehow the Twins aren't currently paying Pavano's salary, simply because he's on the DL. Same for Baker. Same for Capps. The Twins are still paying all three of those, although it's possible they had some sort of insurance on Baker, but I doubt it. The Twins also released Marquis, and are responsible for the rest of his 2012 salary, minus a prorated portion of the MLB minimum.

Their "current" payroll isn't much different than it was on opening day. Chicago is apparently paying for Liriano for the rest of 2012. Other than that, WTF are you talking about?

Wolfy
08-02-2012, 05:47 AM
'

Agreed, I don't think he should spend just to spend. But if you can find another Willingham type signing (for an SP) then give them a 2-3 year deal for a team friendly salary. If not, spend that money on 1 year deals. No such thing as a bad one year deal for the most part.

Yep. All of what you said.

Though with the kind of money he usually budgets for FA pitching, there is a good chance the Twins wind up with another Marquis, so get ready for that.

Brock Beauchamp
08-02-2012, 06:50 AM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that somehow the Twins aren't currently paying Pavano's salary, simply because he's on the DL. Same for Baker. Same for Capps. The Twins are still paying all three of those, although it's possible they had some sort of insurance on Baker, but I doubt it. The Twins also released Marquis, and are responsible for the rest of his 2012 salary, minus a prorated portion of the MLB minimum.

Their "current" payroll isn't much different than it was on opening day. Chicago is apparently paying for Liriano for the rest of 2012. Other than that, WTF are you talking about?

Yeah, I didn't get that, either. Just because someone goes on the DL, it doesn't mean you get to stop paying them.

Also, I bet if you asked Jim Pohlad what the payroll is right now, he wouldn't be able to tell you. In my experience, business owners don't keep track of minor changes in that sort of thing. He'd surely be able to tell you the Opening Day payroll (which he had been directly reported to on and consulted) but I really doubt he keeps track of $500,000 here and there rotating up and down from the minors or being traded. There are a million other (more important) things to be thinking about.

diehardtwinsfan
08-02-2012, 08:52 AM
Talk about jumping the gun with apples and oranges and outdated information, Marquis and Liriano are also cut off from your declarative statement. If you would have bothered to take the time to check the current ACTIVE PLAYER ESPN roster, not including the DLers, this is what I was referring to, and I am surmising that might be a number that would be appealing to Pohlad in 2013, who according to his quote, appeared to be talking in the "present tense" with who is actually on the field. You can add the cost of the current 25-man active roster and what they currently are earning and extrapolate who will be gone this year or at season's end, it's not that difficult.

Regardless, if you check it, your printed Cot's list totals up to a current payroll of $90.0725M. Add $2M for the unlisted salaries of the bottom five, and that puts you at $92.0725M. Liriano gone (already tallied), Marquis gone (already tallied), Pavano, DL and gone, Baker, DL and gone, Capps DL and gone. This brings the payroll down to $72.825M with the Capps 2013 buyout included. Are the scheduled contract raises much more than $5M? I don't think so. That puts the projected payroll for a stand-pat team at ~$77.5M. Obviously, they will attempt to replace the pitching losses via trade or Free Agency. I don't see how they get there without another big salary dump trade or two.

THose contracts are guaranteed... they still paid them. The real payroll is nothing close to 85-90M as you have suggested.

Boom Boom
08-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Twins might consider going after mid-level free agents? Ryan and Gardenhire are beloved by the organization?

This is groundbreaking work by Shooter. Honestly I think he just dug out a column from five or six years ago and reprinted it.

JB_Iowa
08-02-2012, 09:23 AM
I actually tried keeping a spreadsheet on the Twins payroll earlier in the season. It gets very difficult because of the people they've cut loose and promoting minor leaguers, etc.

I don't think ANY of us can accurately predict what payroll will be next year. I tend to think that this year's final tally will end up somewhere around $97 million BUT I don't think that will be Terry Ryan's starting point for next year.

Taking Ryan's comments into account along with Pohlads and trying to reconcile the two, my guess is that Ryan will target a payroll around $90-93 million -- similar to his starting point this year. Even if he has authority above that, he'll want to leave room in case he has to correct any problems, has long DL stints, has to cut loose players, etc.

If anything, I get the impression that Terry Ryan is more fiscally conservative than Jim Pohlad. I simply don't see him starting out toward his "maximum budget" UNLESS he thinks he is really getting a deal. It is much more likely that he is going to take a conservative route somewhere in the low 90's.

DPJ
08-02-2012, 09:26 AM
"We will definitely look at the free-agent market," Pohlad said Tuesday, July 31. "We probably won't sign the most expensive free-agent pitcher that there is. Terry (Ryan, general manager) is committed to doing everything (to improve the team)."


This same stupid quote has been in every article written about the Twins offseason for the last 15+ years.

cr9617
08-02-2012, 09:31 AM
Marquis, Ponson, Livan Hernandez, Mike Lamb? Who else did they sign for a year?
Good one year deal for the Twins? Morris.
Orlando Hudson was neither good nor bad.
Zumaya was a gamble that they lost on. I think is was worth the shot even though they lost. Jeff Gray I think was only intended to be filler for a year, thus not bad.

I believe Lamb was a 2 year deal

gunnarthor
08-02-2012, 09:32 AM
Please get rid of TR. Gardy is an icon so I don't mind him :D. I'd like to have a younger GM who has new school ways. The Twins should dig through the Rays and Pirates organizations for some different management. The Twins NEED fresh faces going forward.

I really don't know why you think TR should go. You point out two org who had historically long number of losing seasons and relatively new front offices that have had the advantages of years worth of high draft picks and/or new stadiums. Ryan kept the Twins a playoff team while reconstructing the nucleus of his team. He's had the job for less than a year and made a number of solid moves in FA - Willingham, Burton, Walters, Doumit, Carroll - as well as drafting and spending a lot in the international market.

Honestly, how would you feel if Ryan blew two drafts like Huntington did in Pitt? In 2009, he took Sanchez #4 on the promise to sign more guys later in the draft - none of which have made the majors or on the Pirates top 10 prospect list - and to sign Miguel Sano. He then took Appel this year and failed to sign him and his backup picks didn't sign either. His top prospects have struggled in the majors and a number of them are making their debuts at 25. His teams have faltered down the stretch (and will probably do so again this year). I actually do think NH is a good GM but I think if Ryan had made the same decisions he had, he'd be lampooned.

cr9617
08-02-2012, 09:35 AM
Here are the two things we know from reading this article:

1) Pohlad said he is comfortable with where payroll is at now.

2) Walters wrote in the article, right next to that particular quote, that payroll for this year stands at around $100 million.

Now I would guess that as a veteran reporter, Walters had the sense to run this number by Pohlad while he was talking to him. And if Pohlad's response was some ridiculous nonsense about how the "current payroll" is actually the current amount they're currently paying to players currently on the 25-man roster extrapolated across a full season well, Walters would have written that in the story.

Any conclusions you draw beyond the two items mentioned above are nothing but absurd conjecture.

A good rule of thumb...is to disregard anything and everything written by Walters.

snepp
08-02-2012, 10:32 AM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that somehow the Twins aren't currently paying Pavano's salary, simply because he's on the DL. Same for Baker. Same for Capps. The Twins are still paying all three of those, although it's possible they had some sort of insurance on Baker, but I doubt it. The Twins also released Marquis, and are responsible for the rest of his 2012 salary, minus a prorated portion of the MLB minimum.

Their "current" payroll isn't much different than it was on opening day. Chicago is apparently paying for Liriano for the rest of 2012. Other than that, WTF are you talking about?

I'd like to third this notion.

snepp
08-02-2012, 10:41 AM
According to Cot's the 2012 Payroll is $100.45M.

Now you done it.

UCLA_YANKEE_COLA
08-02-2012, 11:36 AM
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure Brick stabbed a guy with a trident at some point in this thread.

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 11:39 AM
jokin, you're right, name calling is a sure indication that the name caller is losing the argument. Another sure indicator? Not knowing what you're talking about. Good game. Good game.

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 12:01 PM
I'm continually amused by the examples posters use to support their argument that the Twins (Jim Pohlad) are cheap, and that Terry Ryan is a dinosaur. Yeah, let's go back to Ponson, and all the other pre-Target Field bargain basement signings. Let's ignore all the investments in the recent post-Target Field era. Ignore Willingham, Sano, Amaurys Minier, Doumit, using 97% of this year's draft budget, because instead, you can point to Marquis and blurt out something about the same old cheap dinosaurs, confident that your grasp on fangraphs is vastly superior to Ryan's. Or bring up "quotes" from over the last 15 years, ignoring that none of them were from Jim Pohlad really until maybe four years ago, and tell all of us how conclusively this proves that we're dealing with the same old cheap dinosaurs.

So, if Terry Ryan and Jim Pohlad trade for one #2-type starter, sign another #2-type starter, and otherwise cobble together a starting rotation for 2013 that finishes with an ERA in the top third in the American League, all while keeping the lineup they fixed this year intact, and all while keeping the bullpen they fixed this year intact, and all while continuing to dramatically shore up the farm system, then are you critics who spew out all the "old school" and "cheap" characterizations going to come back and admit your criticism was misguided and perhaps uncharitable?

OK, cool.

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 12:15 PM
Oh, and jokin? You called out a fellow poster for name calling. Fill me in on the rules, will you? Is it bad manners for us to attack each other, but OK to disparage others? For example, you said Jim Pohlad makes his living creating wiggle room for every word he utters. Do you know this person?

That kind of attack, regardless of who is being attacked, is the epitome of smallness.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:12 PM
I'm continually amused by the examples posters use to support their argument that the Twins (Jim Pohlad) are cheap, and that Terry Ryan is a dinosaur. Yeah, let's go back to Ponson, and all the other pre-Target Field bargain basement signings. Let's ignore all the investments in the recent post-Target Field era. Ignore Willingham, Sano, Amaurys Minier, Doumit, using 97% of this year's draft budget, because instead, you can point to Marquis and blurt out something about the same old cheap dinosaurs, confident that your grasp on fangraphs is vastly superior to Ryan's. Or bring up "quotes" from over the last 15 years, ignoring that none of them were from Jim Pohlad really until maybe four years ago, and tell all of us how conclusively this proves that we're dealing with the same old cheap dinosaurs.

So, if Terry Ryan and Jim Pohlad trade for one #2-type starter, sign another #2-type starter, and otherwise cobble together a starting rotation for 2013 that finishes with an ERA in the top third in the American League, all while keeping the lineup they fixed this year intact, and all while keeping the bullpen they fixed this year intact, and all while continuing to dramatically shore up the farm system, then are you critics who spew out all the "old school" and "cheap" characterizations going to come back and admit your criticism was misguided and perhaps uncharitable?

OK, cool.
If the Twins attempt to pull off anything close to your wish list, I will praise them from the rooftops. Because I'm in the real world and not up in a tree somewhere spotting chickadees, I am not holding my breath that it likely will occur. While you're up there in the sycamore, could you present current evidence that JPohlad is enthusiastically ready to make the changes needed in personnel and increasing the payroll commensurate to a team that has the demonstrated capability to draw 3M+ fans to his new ballpark that would make this team a legitimate World Series contender?

Do we have to go through the history? This is the same family that tried their darndest to commit franchise suicide as recently as 2007.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Oh, and jokin? You called out a fellow poster for name calling. Fill me in on the rules, will you? Is it bad manners for us to attack each other, but OK to disparage others? For example, you said Jim Pohlad makes his living creating wiggle room for every word he utters. Do you know this person?

That kind of attack, regardless of who is being attacked, is the epitome of smallness.

Yes, it is bad manners to small-mindedly attack fellow posters on Twins Daily. With respect to Pohlad, I don't see any name calling and you couldn't identify any such instance on my part, I was not having a discussion with Pohlad and I fairly, but mildly colorfully, described what he, and others in political/business situations do for a living, he is a (very) public figure who has benefitted directly from public participation in the building of Target Field. Do you really have a problem with free speech in this situation, because apparently your characterization with parsing the party line is "the epitome of smallness". Right.

twinswon1991
08-02-2012, 01:28 PM
If the Twins attempt to pull of anything close to your wish list, I will praise them from the rooftops. Because I'm in the real world and not up in a tree somewhere spotting chickadees, I am not holding my breath that it likely will occur. While you're up there in the sycamore, could you present current evidence that JPohlad is enthusiastically ready to make the changes needed in personnel and increasing the payroll commensurate to a team that has the demonstrated capability to draw 3M+ fans to his new ballpark that would make this team a legitimate World Series contender?

Do we have to go through the history? This is the same family that tried their darndest to commit franchise suicide as recently as 2007.




Spot on. Birdwatcher must be a member of the Polad family or he has almost zero grasp of reality. I love the Twins but also call them out when they are failing badly because I want them to get to the top once again.

jokin
08-02-2012, 01:53 PM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that somehow the Twins aren't currently paying Pavano's salary, simply because he's on the DL. Same for Baker. Same for Capps. The Twins are still paying all three of those, although it's possible they had some sort of insurance on Baker, but I doubt it. The Twins also released Marquis, and are responsible for the rest of his 2012 salary, minus a prorated portion of the MLB minimum.

Their "current" payroll isn't much different than it was on opening day. Chicago is apparently paying for Liriano for the rest of 2012. Other than that, WTF are you talking about?

i certainly wasn't talking in code, for the umpteenth time, of course the Twins are paying the players on DL and are also on the hook for Marquis and the actual payroll reflects this. I explicitly, and repeatedly, stated that I referred only to the players currently active on the field. I then listed the aforementioned DLers who are virtually assured of being gone either in August or by season's end. From there, I took admittedly large license to cynically parse Pohlad's answer to Walters about the payroll going into next season. Given the past Twins history and the recent background stories about further cuts in payroll in the works, is it unreasonable to think and project from the current roster that a lower payroll in 2013 is a possibility? I noticed Nick Nelson still hasn't responded to my comment on the Twins level of commitment based on a percentage of the revenues, falling attendance this year, and the distinct likelihood of a significant drop in season ticket renewals for next year. I think that's plenty of reasons why Pohlad needs to carve out the wiggle room on a precise payroll number, with the distinct possibility that the number will most certainly not be higher, has a very small chance of remaining the same and could very well, and most likely will, be lower. Will it be $85M? I sure hope not, but that worst-case scenario can't be dismissed out of hand.

pipers44
08-02-2012, 02:08 PM
I am curious as to what many of the detractors expected this past offseason. IMO, this team had so many holes that they had to make a decision on what to address within the confines of their budget. They chose to gamble a bit and hope their starting rotation would bounce back and perform at a level that each of them has shown in the past. Baker and Pavano both get hurt and Blackburn and Liriano both under performed. They tried signing their typical cheap fill in, Marquis. In my eyes, this was a reasonable gamble. They made an unbelieveable signing in Willingham, maybe the best FA signing in baseball. Doumit fits very well with what they want and need to do with Mauer and they fixed their bullpen on the cheap. With the lineup returning and the bullpen mostly covered for next year, I think we need to give TR a chance to address the starting pitching and middle infield this offseason. There was no way he was going to be able to address it all in one offseason.

chuchadoro
08-02-2012, 02:21 PM
"Within budget" means anything left over after this is filled:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcpinfX-_rXQtDMbzrYLVTaTofHJ3O8vSVOP1JHBJm3_agUwKwgQ

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 02:23 PM
jokin,

As a matter of fact I do know a number of the Pohlads, although not particularly well. But I have trouble respecting people who disparage others whether I know the victim or not. Go hide behind your "mildly colorful" garbage, jokin. Maybe it wasn't perjorative name-calling (your recent word choice), but it was disparagement at its lowest. Oh, because someone isn't posting, or because they're in business, that gives you a license to smear them. Cowardly behavior.

And gee, I just don't recall any praise emanating from the mildly colorful jokin when, during Jim Pohlad's "history" of running things (about a four-year period, three of which involved the now-higher revenues), for outbidding everyone for Sano, for spending big bucks to land this year's 4th-ranked International prospect, for spending $850k on Kepler, for signing the best pitching prospect in Australia, for spending almost every dollar of this year's draft allottment, for signing Willingham, or Doumit, for ....the list of "evidence", which you asked for right?....goes on and on and on. And of course, guys like you and twinswon1991 will disregard this evidence, won't you? twiswon1991 will smugly declare how out of touch someone like me is. Funny stuff. mildly colorful even. And remember, Pohlad disagrees with you about the need for certain "personnel " changes. Of course, that's probably because, as a high-profile businessman, he makes his living finding wiggle room for every word he utters, right, jokin. Right. Cowardly and low thing to say.

Oh, and when your're praising Jim Pohlad from the rooftops for spaending this winter to fix the rotation, stay away from my sycamore.

jokin
08-02-2012, 02:41 PM
I am curious as to what many of the detractors expected this past offseason. IMO, this team had so many holes that they had to make a decision on what to address within the confines of their budget. They chose to gamble a bit and hope their starting rotation would bounce back and perform at a level that each of them has shown in the past. Baker and Pavano both get hurt and Blackburn and Liriano both under performed. They tried signing their typical cheap fill in, Marquis. In my eyes, this was a reasonable gamble. They made an unbelieveable signing in Willingham, maybe the best FA signing in baseball. Doumit fits very well with what they want and need to do with Mauer and they fixed their bullpen on the cheap. With the lineup returning and the bullpen mostly covered for next year, I think we need to give TR a chance to address the starting pitching and middle infield this offseason. There was no way he was going to be able to address it all in one offseason.

The first problem with your statement is that the Twins dug their own "budget confines". The second problem is the Twins didn't choose to "gamble a bit" with the rotation, they were all-in on hope and change with Pavano and Baker already walking red flags in showing major treadware on their arms in 2011, and to say that Blackie and Liriano "underperformed" is being kind to a fault. Together with Marquis, they were the worst 3 SPs in all of baseball, and it wasn't close. The reality is, they were stuck with 4 dead-weight, apparently unmovable contracts (although they certainly could have tried harder on Blackburn, and especially Liriano), so it was a gamble, but a major gamble, perhaps reasonable under the circumstances. Willingham was a good signing, but he didn't add to club needs, he replaced half of what they lost to FA in the OF and is a worse OFer than his already-mediocre-to-bad-defensively predecessors.

The other fixes were the "easy ones" and well-done on TR's part, deserving of a congratulatory hand clap rather than a back slap- lest you forget, the Twins are worse than last year with all those fixes- they currently have a .423 winning percentage, a year ago to the day their percentage was .459. The glaring need at SP could have been easily shored up in outbidding and overpaying the signing of one-year deals to a couple of the many SP FAs (Maholm, etc.) with nary a raise in payroll from 2011 and most likely a huge decrease if they could have moved Liriano and/or Blackburn in the offseason- and that all goes back to the Twins and the digging of their own budget confines.

jokin
08-02-2012, 02:56 PM
jokin,

As a matter of fact I do know a number of the Pohlads, although not particularly well. But I have trouble respecting people who disparage others whether I know the victim or not. Go hide behind your "mildly colorful" garbage, jokin. Maybe it wasn't perjorative name-calling (your recent word choice), but it was disparagement at its lowest. Oh, because someone isn't posting, or because they're in business, that gives you a license to smear them. Cowardly behavior.

And gee, I just don't recall any praise emanating from the mildly colorful jokin when, during Jim Pohlad's "history" of running things (about a four-year period, three of which involved the now-higher revenues), for outbidding everyone for Sano, for spending big bucks to land this year's 4th-ranked International prospect, for spending $850k on Kepler, for signing the best pitching prospect in Australia, for spending almost every dollar of this year's draft allottment, for signing Willingham, or Doumit, for ....the list of "evidence", which you asked for right?....goes on and on and on. And of course, guys like you and twinswon1991 will disregard this evidence, won't you? twiswon1991 will smugly declare how out of touch someone like me is. Funny stuff. mildly colorful even. And remember, Pohlad disagrees with you about the need for certain "personnel " changes. Of course, that's probably because, as a high-profile businessman, he makes his living finding wiggle room for every word he utters, right, jokin. Right. Cowardly and low thing to say.

Oh, and when your're praising Jim Pohlad from the rooftops for spaending this winter to fix the rotation, stay away from my sycamore.

Great. I think we have now had it confirmed that the powers-that-be monitor this website, at least by "not particularly well" proxy.

Let's see, identifying a businessman for being a good businessman by not saying something he later will regret is now "a license to smear them" a "low thing to say" and "cowardly behavior"- I'm beginning to think that yellow-bellied sapsucker you claimed to have seen might have been a little bit of hyperbole on your part.

Despite the evidence you presented, you conveniently omitted the fact that the FA signings were replacements, not upgrades, and the payroll was still cut significantly overall. The rest of your comments drone on in meaningless garble (or warble, I guess, in your particular case). I am genuinely glad that the club went the extra mile to spend nearly every penny of that ~$12M in draft allotment, doing the things that clubs should automatically do should make Jim the early favorite for Executive of the Year. Next time you see Jim, tell him I will be the first one on here praising him when he acquires the two #2 quality starters you prophesy and/or brings in fresh blood and new perspectives both in the FO and and the field coaching staff.

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 03:09 PM
No monitoring being done, Mr. colorful, although I will not deny the powers-taht be moniker.

You said what you said. You simply "identified" a businessman. Right.

And look up two words. Hyperbole. Perhaps you can, given your incredibly colorful imagination, learn to use it correctly. And hypocrite. As in one guy being guilty of "perjorative namecalling and another more "colorful" guy simply "identifying" someone. Right.

PseudoSABR
08-02-2012, 03:31 PM
When my points are specious, I too, rely on bold and italics.

Brock Beauchamp
08-02-2012, 03:54 PM
Okay, that's enough. You've both said your piece. Now let's scale it back or the thread gets a lock.

Highabove
08-02-2012, 04:18 PM
I'm continually amused by the examples posters use to support their argument that the Twins (Jim Pohlad) are cheap, and that Terry Ryan is a dinosaur. Yeah, let's go back to Ponson, and all the other pre-Target Field bargain basement signings. Let's ignore all the investments in the recent post-Target Field era. Ignore Willingham, Sano, Amaurys Minier, Doumit, using 97% of this year's draft budget, because instead, you can point to Marquis and blurt out something about the same old cheap dinosaurs, confident that your grasp on fangraphs is vastly superior to Ryan's. Or bring up "quotes" from over the last 15 years, ignoring that none of them were from Jim Pohlad really until maybe four years ago, and tell all of us how conclusively this proves that we're dealing with the same old cheap dinosaurs.

So, if Terry Ryan and Jim Pohlad trade for one #2-type starter, sign another #2-type starter, and otherwise cobble together a starting rotation for 2013 that finishes with an ERA in the top third in the American League, all while keeping the lineup they fixed this year intact, and all while keeping the bullpen they fixed this year intact, and all while continuing to dramatically shore up the farm system, then are you critics who spew out all the "old school" and "cheap" characterizations going to come back and admit your criticism was misguided and perhaps uncharitable?

OK, cool.


Last Season, the Pohlads sold more tickets then 26 other Teams. That includes Major Market Teams, such as the Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers and Angels. The prices on those Tickets, were the 6th highest in Baseball for non premium seating. Those Fans were treated to an awful Product.
After the Record setting support they gave the Twins, Pohlad chose to slash the payroll.
I rest my case.

birdwatcher
08-02-2012, 06:41 PM
Highwater, I understand your case, I really do. But here's where I think you're being a tad bit harsh:

The Twins (Jim Pohlad) has publicly stated that the Twins will budget, ON AVERAGE, roughly 50-55% of revenues for payroll. I have heard this promise firsthand, by the way. This is the third year of Target Field. My opinion, and their stance, is that they went "over budget" in 2011 and went "under budget" in 2012, but the actual numbers aren't important to them. They are to fans and the media, and that's why your rested case is understandable. But they didn"t "slash" payroll. A question: if they won the division next year (pipe dream, I know), and then won a playoff round (funny, I know), would you care what they spent on payroll? Trust me, a bunch of our pals on here would, for whatever unhealthy reasons they might have.

I find it much more enjoyable to trust a person's promise. While I find positivity in some of the many good moves we've seen them make lately, the next guy views the list of those things as meaningless garble. Too bad for that guy. Now, if the Twins don't improve the rotation, I'll be critical again, like I was this year. I, like many others, viewed as a misguided gamble to start the year with Blackburn, Liriano, Pavano, Marquis, and Baker. Of course, jokin can't be charitable enough to even give them credit for thinking it through, insisting instead that they sang some sort of mindless hope an change chant.


So, in the case of your argument, I don't see it as terribly unfair, just not as balanced as it could be by looking at improvement (yes, i know the W-L record, and still will argue the team is much improved) in addition to spending over, say, a three year AVERAGE. Let's give them a chance to continue to fix things and see what the spending pattern looks like.

By the way, my wish list (my pal jokin's term) is this: A new #2-3 type starter via winter trade, a new #2-3 type starter via FA signing, and then some combination of Gibson, Hendriks, Diamond, Baker,Blackburn, Hermsen, Deduno, DeVries, Walters, Bromberg, and God knows who else filling the rotaion, with that rotation mustering an ERA in the top half, maybe even top third, of the American League. (My wish list for 2012 had been to have a bullpen with an ERA in the top 35-50%, and they might just fulfill my wish). With this,, at least one more reliable reliever, a lineup equally as productive, with maybe an improvemnt in MI depth, and continued improvement in the farm system, say a BA ranking in the top 1-12 to start 2013.

So, I'm really excited, because my colorful pal jokin has promised to sing from the rooftops if the Twins even attempt to pull off anything this close. What do you think? Can we trust jokin to keep his word. I do. I like to trust that people are going to keep their word. Glass half full, I guess.

Jeremy Nygaard
08-02-2012, 07:18 PM
If my link worked down below, I would refer you to that website... but it doesn't, so I've pasted the page and reformatted it so hopefully it looks ago below. Salaries are rounded to the nearest $100. Amounts are pro-rated when necessary. Players that are currently in the major leagues are listed with a salary that would account for them being in the major leagues for the rest of the season. Obviously, it will change with every roster move, but you get the points.



Pos
Active Roster
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018


C
Joe Mauer
$23,025,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000


1B
Justin Morneau
$14,000,000
$14,000,000







2B
Jamey Carroll
$2,750,000
$3,750,000
$250,000






3B
Danny Valencia
$298,300








SS
Brian Dozier
$398,700








LF
Josh Willingham
$7,000,000
$7,000,000
$7,000,000






CF
Denard Span
$3,000,000
$4,750,000
$6,500,000
$500,000





RF/CF
Ben Revere
$402,000

SUPER 2?






DH/C
Ryan Doumit
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,500,000






2B/SS
Alexi Casilla
$1,382,500
ARB 3







C
Drew Butera
$414,300
SUPER 2?
ARB1






OF
Darin Mastroianni
$390,800








LSP
Scott Diamond
$398,700








SP
Sam Deduno
$241,300








LP
Brian Duensing
$515,000
ARB1
ARB2






SP
Cole De Vries
$291,100








SP
Nick Blackburn
$4,750,000
$5,500,000
$ -






LRP
Glen Perkins
$1,550,000
$2,500,000
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
$300,000




RP
Jared Burton
$750,000
ARB3







RP
Alex Burnett
$490,000
ARB1
ARB2






P
Jeff Manship
$262,300








RP
Jeff Gray
$485,000

ARB1






LRP
Tyler Robertson
$270,200








RP
Casey Fien
$246,600








P
Luis Perdomo
$186,200








Pos
15-day DL









3B
Trevor Plouffe
$485,000

SUPER 2?






RP
Anthony Swarzak
$487,500

ARB1






RP
Matt Capps
$4,500,000
$250,000







Pos
60-day DL









SP
Scott Baker
$6,500,000
$ -







SP
Carl Pavano
$8,500,000








SP
P.J. Walters
$390,800








Pos
Other obligations









LSP
Francisco Liriano
$3,426,200








P
Jason Marquis
$2,659,000








P
Joel Zumaya
$850,000








2B/SS
Tsuyoshi Nishioka
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$250,000






1B
Chris Parmelee
$186,200








RP
Kyle Waldrop
$183,600








SP
Liam Hendriks
$125,900








LP
Matt Maloney
$94,900








1B/3B
Sean Burroughs
$83,200








CF
Clete Thomas
$78,700








RP
Lester Oliveros
$5,200








TOTAL
$98,054,200
$67,250,000
$44,250,000
$27,250,000
$23,300,000
$23,000,000
$23,000,000

Nick Nelson
08-02-2012, 07:27 PM
Nice job with the table Jeremy. Very good resource.

Brock Beauchamp
08-02-2012, 07:38 PM
The mere idea that Butera has a shot at Super 2 status makes me want to throw up.

snepp
08-02-2012, 07:49 PM
The mere idea that Butera has a shot at Super 2 status makes me want to throw up.

How much whispering can $800 thousand buy?

DJSim22
08-02-2012, 08:10 PM
Although I would really like to see a new GM, what the Twins really need is a new owner. The Polads are the worst owners in town by far, and are far more concerned with their budget numbers than W's and L's. They could easily afford to go over their budget numbers in years they need to sign quality free agents like this off season or next. I think anyone who lives in the real world, knows they won't. At some point maybe they will realize it takes money to make money, but I'm not holding my breath.


So, we are expected to win on the cheap building within and with a GM who isn't exactly known for quality drafts.

DJSim22
08-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Highwater, I understand your case, I really do. But here's where I think you're being a tad bit harsh:

The Twins (Jim Pohlad) has publicly stated that the Twins will budget, ON AVERAGE, roughly 50-55% of revenues for payroll. I have heard this promise firsthand, by the way. This is the third year of Target Field. My opinion, and their stance, is that they went "over budget" in 2011 and went "under budget" in 2012, but the actual numbers aren't important to them.

Will you ask them firsthand to sell the team? I've heard via interview firsthand plenty of times the Polad's and TR have used the budget as an excuse. This team won division titles despit the ownership, and never could get past the first round because ownership never helped them get over that hump. There's a reason why they were under dogs in each series.

Unfortunately for me, I love baseball, so they occasionally get my money though they don't deserve it.

crarko
08-02-2012, 08:22 PM
Although I would really like to see a new GM, what the Twins really need is a new owner. The Polads are the worst owners in town by far, and are far more concerned with their budget numbers than W's and L's. They could easily afford to go over their budget numbers in years they need to sign quality free agents like this off season or next. I think anyone who lives in the real world, knows they won't. At some point maybe they will realize it takes money to make money, but I'm not holding my breath.


So, we are expected to win on the cheap building within and with a GM who isn't exactly known for quality drafts.

Do you remember Calvin Griffith?

Jeremy Nygaard
08-02-2012, 08:25 PM
Nice job with the table Jeremy. Very good resource.

Thanks. If Rocketpig could give me a "Turning my HTML into a Blog Post for Dummies" Tutorial, I'd like to house it there and update as changes happen. The table doesn't capture the true essence of the entire page.

Jeremy Nygaard
08-02-2012, 08:30 PM
The mere idea that Butera has a shot at Super 2 status makes me want to throw up.

I think he'll qualify for it. Had he spent the whole year up (or less than 11 days in the minors) he would have gotten a full service year and qualified anyway. Basically, sending him down to start the season gave the Twins another year of team control. (I bet you like that even more!)

Brock Beauchamp
08-02-2012, 09:33 PM
I think he'll qualify for it. Had he spent the whole year up (or less than 11 days in the minors) he would have gotten a full service year and qualified anyway. Basically, sending him down to start the season gave the Twins another year of team control. (I bet you like that even more!)

*bangs face on desk*

pipers44
08-03-2012, 01:12 AM
The first problem with your statement is that the Twins dug their own "budget confines". The second problem is the Twins didn't choose to "gamble a bit" with the rotation, they were all-in on hope and change with Pavano and Baker already walking red flags in showing major treadware on their arms in 2011, and to say that Blackie and Liriano "underperformed" is being kind to a fault. Together with Marquis, they were the worst 3 SPs in all of baseball, and it wasn't close. The reality is, they were stuck with 4 dead-weight, apparently unmovable contracts (although they certainly could have tried harder on Blackburn, and especially Liriano), so it was a gamble, but a major gamble, perhaps reasonable under the circumstances. Willingham was a good signing, but he didn't add to club needs, he replaced half of what they lost to FA in the OF and is a worse OFer than his already-mediocre-to-bad-defensively predecessors.

The other fixes were the "easy ones" and well-done on TR's part, deserving of a congratulatory hand clap rather than a back slap- lest you forget, the Twins are worse than last year with all those fixes- they currently have a .423 winning percentage, a year ago to the day their percentage was .459. The glaring need at SP could have been easily shored up in outbidding and overpaying the signing of one-year deals to a couple of the many SP FAs (Maholm, etc.) with nary a raise in payroll from 2011 and most likely a huge decrease if they could have moved Liriano and/or Blackburn in the offseason- and that all goes back to the Twins and the digging of their own budget confines.

How do you know "they certainly could have tried harder on Blackburn, and especially Liriano?" Do you sit in their offseason meetings? Hind sight is always 20-20. It was not unreasonable to think that Pavano would pitch his 200 plus innings with a 4 something ERA. It was not unreasonable to think Baker would pitch most of a season at his career numbers. It was a realistic gamble to hope Blackburn would bounce back and pitch to the level of success he had shown in the past. Same thing with Liriano. If you want to rip them for being locked into contracts with Pavano and Blackburn and Baker, then fine, but to rip them for not signing other starting pitchers when they were already locked in with three pitchers who had shown success is unrealistic. They made a great signing with Willingham in spite of his poor defense, but they were not going to be able to afford him, Doumit, Carrol, and a couple of the many SP FAs. Now, if they do not do something this offseason to address the rotation, I will be the first to rip them.

Also, comparing last years record to this years at this point means absolutely nothing. They were coming off a stretch right before the deadline last year that boosted their record and then bombed the rest of the way. Lets see how the rest of the year plays out and then we can compare the two. I am willing to bet that they will finish significantly better then last year.

USAFChief
08-03-2012, 01:55 AM
Highwater, I understand your case, I really do. But here's where I think you're being a tad bit harsh:

The Twins (Jim Pohlad) has publicly stated that the Twins will budget, ON AVERAGE, roughly 50-55% of revenues for payroll. I have heard this promise firsthand, by the way. This is the third year of Target Field. My opinion, and their stance, is that they went "over budget" in 2011 and went "under budget" in 2012, but the actual numbers aren't important to them. They are to fans and the media, and that's why your rested case is understandable. But they didn"t "slash" payroll.

Next time you hear this promise "firsthand," please ask:

1. How were they "over budget" in 2011? Forbes estimated Twins revenues at $213M in 2011 http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html . 55% of 213 is 117. Sounds to me like they weren't "over budget" in 2011 at all.

2. If "on average" they will spend 50-55% of revenues on payroll, then they are clearly going to need to bump up payroll in the near future to get to that average. Forbes estimates they will have $213m in revenue in 2012, as well http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/ . They are spending something like $100m this year, or 47%. They spent less than $100m on payroll in 2010, and while I can't find estimates for 2010 revenue, one would have to assume it was at least as high as last year or this year, since TF was jam packed the entire 2010 season (highest attendance to date, but a smaller TV deal). So they were almost surely under 50% in 2010, likely less than 45%.
Please ask when we can expect payroll to "average 50-55%," since they've only been in that range once in the first three years of TF.

3. While you're at it, please ask why the 50-55% number needs to stay the same in TF as it was in the dome. For example, if we believe what the Twins have themselves said (50% to payroll) the Twins could afford a $65m payroll on $130m in revenue in the dome, leaving $65m to pay for all other expenses. Right? Why would they need significantly more now in TF to pay for all those other expenses? Why, in the space of one year, would you suddenly need more than $100m on top of major league salaries? ($213M in revenue, minus major league salary of $100m, leaves $113M "left over.") Please ask why "other expenses" nearly doubled when the Twins moved to TF.

Thanks in advance.

Highabove
08-03-2012, 03:28 AM
Here is something which may surprise a few of you

In their last year at the Dome in 2009, the Twins pretax earnings were almost as large as they were at Target Field in 2010.
Forbes Magazine reported that the Twins had 162 million dollars in revenue and realized pretax earnings of 25million. The 9th highest in Baseball. This is at the Dome!!
The opening day payroll was 65,299,267. The Twins were way below the 50% of Revenue that the Twins sell us. This probably accounts for their large 2009 earnings.

In their first year at Target Field, Forbes reported revenue of 213million with pretax earnings of 26.5 million.
Starting day payroll was 97500 which again falls below 50% of revenue.

Here is two years of under paying the Payroll based on 50% of Revenue. We will only be reminded of the payroll over payment of 2011. Don't ever expect the Media and the Phil Mackey's of the World, to ever bring up the years that the Twins under paid their payroll.

The Business Of Baseball - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html)

The Business Of Baseball, 2011 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)

old nurse
08-03-2012, 05:56 AM
Next time you hear this promise "firsthand," please ask:


2. If "on average" they will spend 50-55% of revenues on payroll, then they are clearly going to need to bump up payroll in the near future to get to that average. Forbes estimates they will have $213m in revenue in 2012, as well http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/ . They are spending something like $100m this year, or 47%. They spent less than $100m on payroll in 2010, and while I can't find estimates for 2010 revenue, one would have to assume it was at least as high as last year or this year, since TF was jam packed the entire 2010 season (highest attendance to date, but a smaller TV deal). So they were almost surely under 50% in 2010, likely less than 45%.
Please ask when we can expect payroll to "average 50-55%," since they've only been in that range once in the first three years of TF.


Thanks in advance.

I read somewhere and can not find that sales tax revenues from the Target field was down 1 million this year. As the newness wears off the fans were not spending as much on food. The Forbes estimate could be a bit high. No doubt the Twins still have a profit, but not as much as a Joe Mauer contract.

JB_Iowa
08-03-2012, 08:49 AM
3. While you're at it, please ask why the 50-55% number needs to stay the same in TF as it was in the dome. For example, if we believe what the Twins have themselves said (50% to payroll) the Twins could afford a $65m payroll on $130m in revenue in the dome, leaving $65m to pay for all other expenses. Right? Why would they need significantly more now in TF to pay for all those other expenses? Why, in the space of one year, would you suddenly need more than $100m on top of major league salaries? ($213M in revenue, minus major league salary of $100m, leaves $113M "left over.") Please ask why "other expenses" nearly doubled when the Twins moved to TF.


I have asked myself that question as well but I do think its hard to compare expenses at TF to the Dome. Are the deals the same in terms of who provides operating personnel, maintenance, etc.? Did the Twins add personnel to provide a better "fan experience" (per Mr. St. Peter's characterization)? Even such things as power, water, etc. -- how does payment compare? Oh, and then we have the whole debt service question (regardless of how you feel about it) -- how much is allocated to paying off the Twins "contribution" to TF?

Then there's the whole revenue sharing question (paying in rather than getting a payout). There is just so much secrecy regarding baseball finances. The Forbes estimates are just that - an estimate. They are the best we have -- and I trust them more than what the Twins say -- but they are still just estimating.

John Bonnes
08-03-2012, 08:56 AM
Do you remember Calvin Griffith?

Touche.

SweetOne69
08-03-2012, 10:55 AM
2. If "on average" they will spend 50-55% of revenues on payroll, then they are clearly going to need to bump up payroll in the near future to get to that average. Forbes estimates they will have $213m in revenue in 2012, as well http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/ . They are spending something like $100m this year, or 47%. They spent less than $100m on payroll in 2010, and while I can't find estimates for 2010 revenue, one would have to assume it was at least as high as last year or this year, since TF was jam packed the entire 2010 season (highest attendance to date, but a smaller TV deal). So they were almost surely under 50% in 2010, likely less than 45%.
Please ask when we can expect payroll to "average 50-55%," since they've only been in that range once in the first three years of TF.


Forbes doesn't estimate future revenues. That $213M number is the revenue for 2011 which was the same as 2010. With attendance down 10% and people spending less I expect the 2012 revenue to drop to $200M.

jokin
08-03-2012, 11:33 AM
Forbes doesn't estimate future revenues. That $213M number is the revenue for 2011 which was the same as 2010. With attendance down 10% and people spending less I expect the 2012 revenue to drop to $200M.

Forbes may not estimate future revenues but the Twins surely do. Using the numbers given and the fact that attendance is actually currently down 11% with the looming prospect of larger drop off heading into September, with presumably commensurate fall offs in other revenue streams, an 11% drop off yields estimated revenues of $189.5M. If the trend continues with falling season ticket renewals for 2013, the revenue estimates could cascade ever lower.

jokin
08-03-2012, 11:41 AM
No monitoring being done, Mr. colorful, although I will not deny the powers-taht be moniker.

You said what you said. You simply "identified" a businessman. Right.

And look up two words. Hyperbole. Perhaps you can, given your incredibly colorful imagination, learn to use it correctly. And hypocrite. As in one guy being guilty of "perjorative namecalling and another more "colorful" guy simply "identifying" someone. Right.

Following your suggestion:

Hyperbole- Excessive, Exaggeration, A deliberate exaggeration used for effect, From the Greek: an "over"/"throw".

I think all of your characterizations qualify under these definitions, I "colorfully" pointed out that as a self-proclaimed birdwatcher you might also be prone to writing about your yellow-bellied sapsucker bird-viewing exploits when in fact all you saw was a common woodpecker from your sycamore, so yes, I am familiar with the usage of the word, hyperbole. I still don't understand how correctly identifying someone in a political position who is used to not letting himself being pinned down on specifics makes one a hypocrite. I fail to detect even a smattering of verisimilitude between your personal attacks on me with wildly overblown characterizations such as, "cowardly" or "smearing" or "disparagement at its lowest" or "hypocritical"--- and identifying a businessman for doing what businessmen do and using the descriptive phrase "wiggle room" in the process.

This all comes down to the point that you, Nick and others aren't realistically addressing. You glossed over and then denied the fact that the Twins cut ("slashed") the payroll after a record-setting financially successful season. At the time this news became public, there were also reports that further payroll cuts might be necessary and seriously considered in successive years. You correctly identified the Pohlad commitment to the percentage of revenues that will be dedicated to the payroll- and there is a scenario underway where ownership can keep their alleged "promise" that you hold in high regard. There is a strong possibility that final ticket revenues might come in as much as 20% lower than last year (they're currently down 11% and slackening demand is evidenced in stubhub ticket prices at giveaway level). To further JPs need for wiggle room, season ticket renewals this fall may also suffer a significant decline. If this holds true and other revenue sources decline at similar rates, and, the Twins project a similar year next year, those 20% revenue haircuts in back-to-back years to your business bottom-line hurt you where you live, even in Jim's humble abode. So, I ask again, if these circumstances fall into place, as they likely can, will the 2013 payroll increase, decrease or stay the same? 20% from $98M is $78.4M. Even with a potential payroll at $85-$90M, there is little room to get a #2-potential SP level FA pitcher in your wish list scenario, they start at close to $15M, and, you have to overpay in the process of convincing them that the Twins will be competitive. I also find it extremely problematic that there is a trading partner with someone willing to part with a #2-potential starter for someone on the current Twins roster, short of giving away the "farm", as well (goodbye Sano and maybe more). I'm guessing that Terry Ryan is instead looking for some more Rule 5 lightning to strike twice. We are actually in agreement that it was a "misguided gamble" to enter into the 2012 season with a SP staff with that many question marks, short of another off-loading of fixed 2013 salary cost, the reality of the financial numbers and continued question marks concerning the pitchers themselves suggests that the Twins will be forced to similarly gamble again in 2013.

bulldogguy
08-03-2012, 11:53 AM
Please get rid of TR. Gardy is an icon so I don't mind him :D. I'd like to have a younger GM who has new school ways. The Twins should dig through the Rays and Pirates organizations for some different management. The Twins NEED fresh faces going forward.

I love how people gravitate to the Rays and Pirates like they have some new secret sauce for identifying and developing players. NEWS FLASH...when you are as bad as they have been for the last 10+ years...you draft really high every year and eventually you are going to hit on some players. For the first 6/7 years they missed and missed badly. Now they are finally hitting on some things. I think this has more to do with the law of averages than being a master judge of talent.

bulldogguy
08-03-2012, 12:20 PM
BTW...this is the worst thread I have read since the inception of this site...I can't believe I acutally spent the time going through this. There goes my lunch hour...

Can we just agree to disagree...can't we all just get along...don't worry be happy...

Sorry...its friday.

DJSim22
08-03-2012, 07:33 PM
Do you remember Calvin Griffith?

So you are going to use Mr Scrooge to justify the Polad's?

DJSim22
08-03-2012, 07:35 PM
Next time you hear this promise "firsthand," please ask:

1. How were they "over budget" in 2011? Forbes estimated Twins revenues at $213M in 2011 http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html . 55% of 213 is 117. Sounds to me like they weren't "over budget" in 2011 at all.

2. If "on average" they will spend 50-55% of revenues on payroll, then they are clearly going to need to bump up payroll in the near future to get to that average. Forbes estimates they will have $213m in revenue in 2012, as well http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/ . They are spending something like $100m this year, or 47%. They spent less than $100m on payroll in 2010, and while I can't find estimates for 2010 revenue, one would have to assume it was at least as high as last year or this year, since TF was jam packed the entire 2010 season (highest attendance to date, but a smaller TV deal). So they were almost surely under 50% in 2010, likely less than 45%.
Please ask when we can expect payroll to "average 50-55%," since they've only been in that range once in the first three years of TF.

3. While you're at it, please ask why the 50-55% number needs to stay the same in TF as it was in the dome. For example, if we believe what the Twins have themselves said (50% to payroll) the Twins could afford a $65m payroll on $130m in revenue in the dome, leaving $65m to pay for all other expenses. Right? Why would they need significantly more now in TF to pay for all those other expenses? Why, in the space of one year, would you suddenly need more than $100m on top of major league salaries? ($213M in revenue, minus major league salary of $100m, leaves $113M "left over.") Please ask why "other expenses" nearly doubled when the Twins moved to TF.

Thanks in advance.

I can't wait to hear the answers! I suspect they will argue Forbes numbers, but we can hope for some accountability.