PDA

View Full Version : Should Twins Offer Dempster A 3-Year Deal?



John Bonnes
12-03-2012, 09:30 AM
It appears the Twins are looking hard at Dempster, and it appears he's pushing interested teams for a 3-year deal. That might be all that it takes to nab the 35-year-old who has been a dependable horse for the last five years.

I don't know if the Twins could get him at 3/39, but I have to think they have a shot at 3/42. Would you do it? His baseball reference page is here:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dempsry01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.typepad.com

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 09:32 AM
Absolutely not. Dempster is a #4 at best in the AL and he is getting old. If you want a guy who can give you 200+ IP of mediocre (4.50ERA) pitching, why not just sign Pavano to a minimum deal?

I would be ok with a 1 year deal for Dempster, but anything more then that? Pass.

birdwatcher
12-03-2012, 09:53 AM
Yuck.

twinsnorth49
12-03-2012, 09:56 AM
I'd rather live with the ultimate realities that 2013 will be bringing, focus on 2014 and beyond and not get locked into a 35 year old pitcher like Dempster for 3 years. About the only plus would be him somehow pitching well enough to flip him for a prospect to a contending team at the deadline in 2014. Don't see that happening.

edavis0308
12-03-2012, 10:15 AM
Yikes. A two year deal is about as far as I would go. It appears he did pitch better on the road last year, and with more strikeouts, but a three year deal for an aging pitcher is pushing the limits I would say.

Fire Dan Gladden
12-03-2012, 10:30 AM
Nope. Too many dollars for the projected return. I would rather see Minor League offers on guys than a 3 year contract here.

chagen
12-03-2012, 10:34 AM
Nope! with a team rebuilding he's old and a soft tosser don't want or need him

TwinsFanInPhilly
12-03-2012, 10:42 AM
Saw a tweet that Tigers offered Sanchez 4/48 - would you rather try to beat that?

edit : Now Jason Beck says 4/48 not accurate - disregard

mike wants wins
12-03-2012, 10:43 AM
Not my first choice...for less money, maybe, but I do not think that is what you are asking.

ericchri
12-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Saw a tweet that Tigers offered Sanchez 4/48 - would you rather try to beat that?

Uhh, yes, yes I would. Sanchez is 7 years younger and a significantly better pitcher. I would gladly give him 4/50-52 then 3/42 for Dempster. I would do as high as 5/60-62 for sanchez.

Twins Twerp
12-03-2012, 11:20 AM
Saw a tweet that Tigers offered Sanchez 4/48 - would you rather try to beat that?

Uhh, yes, yes I would. Sanchez is 7 years younger and a significantly better pitcher. I would gladly give him 4/50-52 then 3/42 for Dempster. I would do as high as 5/60-62 for sanchez.

Your 5/62 would not even get you a phone call back. This guy is going to get 6 years I would bet money on it. This is the problem with signing top-tier free agents. It just doesn't work. You have to build through your farm system and trades. There is no way any of these guys are worth this amount of money. Dempster for 3 years...at age 35, no chance. Forget it. We need to keep looking for the bargains. We may suck next year, but I'd rather suck with a low payroll than suck a little less with a high payroll. Use that money to resign our guys when they turn into to studs: for example a guy like Meyer is a Boras client. Save that money and try to sign him early for long term (which is probably not going to happen because Boras is the worst thing in baseball).

James
12-03-2012, 11:26 AM
Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.
It's much too early to angry with the front office for not fixing the rotation yet. It is only the first day of the winter meetings. So, I agree with you 100% on that point.

Also, not very excited by the idea of giving Dempster that much money. Maybe offer a one year deal, but he's looking for more than that. Any way about it, Dempster should not be the first pitcher they go after.

Top Gun
12-03-2012, 11:28 AM
According to CBS Sports' Jon Heyman, the Tigers offered Anibal Sanchez a four-year, $48 million contract.

And it was quickly rejected by Sanchez and his agent, who called the proposal an "insult." Sanchez is thought to be seeking a six-year deal worth close to $90 million. The Red Sox, Blue Jays, Rangers and Dodgers are known to have interest, and the Tigers will presumably be back in the running if the asking price drops.

Source: Jon Heyman on Twitter (https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/275630366017077248)

Top Gun
12-03-2012, 11:33 AM
Ryan Dempster is looking for a three-year deal, reports Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Brewers are highly interested in working out an agreement with the veteran right-handed starter, but they don't want to go beyond two years. Dempster has also drawn interest from the Red Sox, Royals and Angels so far this offseason. He registered a solid 3.38 ERA, 1.20 WHIP and 153/52 K/BB ratio across 173 innings this past summer between the Cubs and Rangers.
Related: Brewers (http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/clubhouse/mlb/mlw/brewers)

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/181832161.html)

SweetOne69
12-03-2012, 11:35 AM
I am not high on Dempster. While he has always had good K and BB rates, he has always had high hit rates and that is in the NL where he faces a pitcher every 3 innings. His career WHIP is 1.433. He had a 5+ERA with the Rangers last year and I think that is where he will stay if with an AL team.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 11:36 AM
Saw a tweet that Tigers offered Sanchez 4/48 - would you rather try to beat that?

Uhh, yes, yes I would. Sanchez is 7 years younger and a significantly better pitcher. I would gladly give him 4/50-52 then 3/42 for Dempster. I would do as high as 5/60-62 for sanchez.

Your 5/62 would not even get you a phone call back. This guy is going to get 6 years I would bet money on it. This is the problem with signing top-tier free agents. It just doesn't work. You have to build through your farm system and trades. There is no way any of these guys are worth this amount of money. Dempster for 3 years...at age 35, no chance. Forget it. We need to keep looking for the bargains. We may suck next year, but I'd rather suck with a low payroll than suck a little less with a high payroll. Use that money to resign our guys when they turn into to studs: for example a guy like Meyer is a Boras client. Save that money and try to sign him early for long term (which is probably not going to happen because Boras is the worst thing in baseball).

6 years is a long time that typically only "aces" get. Sanchez isn't an Ace, they are asking for 6/90 but I would be shocked if they got that much. 5 years/75 would get it done I imagine, possibly even 5/70

Brock Beauchamp
12-03-2012, 11:44 AM
6 years is a long time that typically only "aces" get. Sanchez isn't an Ace, they are asking for 6/90 but I would be shocked if they got that much. 5 years/75 would get it done I imagine, possibly even 5/70

I think there's a chance he'll get six years. It seems that every year, there's a team willing to overpay a guy based on his previous postseason. Sanchez pitched really well for the Tigers and some GM will put too much stock in that performance.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 11:45 AM
6 years is a long time that typically only "aces" get. Sanchez isn't an Ace, they are asking for 6/90 but I would be shocked if they got that much. 5 years/75 would get it done I imagine, possibly even 5/70

I think there's a chance he'll get six years. It seems that every year, there's a team willing to overpay a guy based on his previous postseason. Sanchez pitched really well for the Tigers and some GM will put too much stock in that performance.

3.75 ERA as a Tiger, also a sub 7 k/9 rate. He wasn't exactly Cy Young out there.

Brock Beauchamp
12-03-2012, 11:54 AM
6 years is a long time that typically only "aces" get. Sanchez isn't an Ace, they are asking for 6/90 but I would be shocked if they got that much. 5 years/75 would get it done I imagine, possibly even 5/70

I think there's a chance he'll get six years. It seems that every year, there's a team willing to overpay a guy based on his previous postseason. Sanchez pitched really well for the Tigers and some GM will put too much stock in that performance.

3.75 ERA as a Tiger, also a sub 7 k/9 rate. He wasn't exactly Cy Young out there.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. I wouldn't give him six years, only saying that there's a chance some GM out there will do it.

Nick Nelson
12-03-2012, 11:56 AM
We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 12:04 PM
We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.
Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.

twinsnorth49
12-03-2012, 12:08 PM
We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.
Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.

Kettle, meet Pot.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1106.gif

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 12:17 PM
We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.
Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.

Kettle, meet Pot.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1106.gif
I guess I should have replaced soapbox with faux social outrage.

Twins Twerp
12-03-2012, 12:42 PM
Yikes, did we just wonder into an free market/socialism debate?

Damn you Dempster for starting a deeper argument. I don't get what were talking about so I will change the subject...DON'T SIGN DEMPSTER FOR THAT KIND OF DOUGH...MOOLA...MARK...YEN...EURO...POUND...PESO.. .FRANK...RUPEE...NAIRA...etc. (ps I couldn't think of any more international amounts of monetary values)

70charger
12-03-2012, 12:57 PM
Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.

Great post. Funny how Terry Ryan was derided for calling the free agent market thin when according to the posters here there aren't any pitchers good enough to play for us. Don't get me wrong, I think the asking prices on some of these players are pretty obscene, but is there any real difference between bitching about the price before the guy is signed and whining about how the team missed out after the guy signs somewhere else?

That said, Dempster would be a good idea for a year or two. I really like Dempster. Three years though? Not so much.

johnnydakota
12-03-2012, 01:08 PM
If we sign Anibal sanchez 1st, yes i would offer Dempster a 2 year contract with a option 3rd year , maybe a vesting option?If not Dempster then either Jackson or Haren as the #2 option for our 2013 rotation.
As for Sanchez offering him an opt out after his 2nd year might improve our chances of signing him.With salarys skyrocketing , this might look good to him. Like i have posted i would offer 15 million over 4 years with an vesting option at 20 millon ,with an opt out for him after 2 years, allowing him to pursue bigger money , and also giving him security at the same time..

Dilligaf69
12-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Yeah guys you can't bitch about no pitching but then bitch about the money it costs to get FA starters....just doesn't work boys can't have it both ways. Now I agree...NO on Dempster but if he's commanding and will probably get 12-13 mil per season for 2-3 yrs from someone then what do we expect to pay for anyone decent??

Dilligaf69
12-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Agree totally! with 70 charger

Dilligaf69
12-03-2012, 01:35 PM
Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.

Great post. Funny how Terry Ryan was derided for calling the free agent market thin when according to the posters here there aren't any pitchers good enough to play for us. Don't get me wrong, I think the asking prices on some of these players are pretty obscene, but is there any real difference between bitching about the price before the guy is signed and whining about how the team missed out after the guy signs somewhere else?

That said, Dempster would be a good idea for a year or two. I really like Dempster. Three years though? Not so much.



Not bad but doubt he does it..

edavis0308
12-03-2012, 02:19 PM
Context needs to be taken into account with all these deals. The line or Dempster appears to be at 2-3 years where shades of gray kick in if you really want him or not. What if he refuses to sign for anything less than 5 years? Would you still want him? Of course not (assuming he isn't signing for a million or two a year). If he would sign a three year deal at a decent price, why not, but assuming fair market value, I would get nervous after two years and decent money. Sure, everyone around here is clammering for signing some free agent pitchers, and paying market value. I think it is just fine if people don't want to sign the free agent pitchers at over the top foolish contracts.

Top Gun
12-03-2012, 03:02 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 03:05 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should go out and start overpaying for mediocre starting pitchers. Now if you want to over pay for Dempster on a 1 year deal, fine. But I don't want to see them handicap the future by handing out a bunch of bad long term contracts just for the sake of "spending money for 2013"

If you give me the choice between:
1. Overpaying for Dempster on a three year deal or
2. Blowing up the team and go into a complete rebuild.

Honestly, give me #2 as Dempster really doesn't make us that much better for the future.

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 03:16 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

071063
12-03-2012, 03:20 PM
Not a fan of Dempster for 3 years. At his age and the current Twins roster, I would be inclined to look at someone younger and overpay / over term them.

joeboo_22
12-03-2012, 03:24 PM
I just don't know if Dempster is an AL pitcher, or if he wants to pitch in the AL, he did finally accept the trade to Texas last year, struggled somewhat with a 5+ ERA (though many pitchers struggle there), other then that had pitched only in the NL, looks more like a NL pitcher to me. Especially for a 3 year deal. I'd hate to give him a 3 year deal. Also a lot of innings on that arm, came up at 21 pitched a bunch of innings his first couple of years, then went to the bullpen for a few and then has been right around 200 IP in each of the past 5 years except last year.

70charger
12-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 03:35 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

Brock Beauchamp
12-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.

70charger
12-03-2012, 03:39 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

The argument wasn't about "should," it was about "does." The fact is that you don't know what management does with it. Their plans are not public.

But to answer your alternate question, they should invest it in the future. Whether that means this coming year or in 2015, I don't particularly care, as long as the investments made are wise.

twinsnorth49
12-03-2012, 03:42 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Why don't you spare us the condescension and let us know?

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 03:47 PM
Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.

The 112M was in 2011, not 2010...and the payroll wasn't to go for it after a disappointing finish to a promising 2010 season. It was mostly for pay raises due. Remember Mauer's pay raise kicked in...just for one example. In fact, payroll went up, even after they jettisoned their starting middle IFs and gutted their bullpen. There was no talent gain for 2011 to show they were going for it. Raises were just due.

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 03:48 PM
Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

Exactly..

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Why don't you spare us the condescension and let us know?

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was hoping to get an answer. If it came off that way, it was not intentional.

joeboo_22
12-03-2012, 03:51 PM
I agree with the aspect that the Twins should spend money, and the fans should expect and want them to spend money. But I think if they want to spend money just to spend money they are hurting the franchise for years to come. Now because of the draft/cba situation a little bit more organizational money is able to go to payroll, however if you start giving 3-4-5 year deals to 35+ year old pitchers or pitchers with arm problems, you are asking for trouble. Now at the same time that doesn't mean you go dumpster diving to get your rotation but you still have to be somewhat smart about it.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 03:53 PM
Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.

Yeah, I don't get it, and the constant bitching about payroll gives me tired head. We aren't even in Janurary yet, now is not the time to worry about total payroll. I do know one thing, spending money for the sole sake of spending money is a really bad idea, especially when you are talking long term deals. At this point I'm much more worried about our payroll obligations for 2014/2015 then I am for 2013. In a perfect world the Twins would sign a top tier pitcher to a long term deal, and any of the guys who project to be #4/#5's be brought it on one year deals and potentially a two year deal as long as it isn't to expensive.

At the end of the day: Give me Hendriks as our #5 then giving a guy like Dempster 3 years, as there actually is a pretty decent chance Hendriks gives you similar value for about 12 million+ less a year.

puckett1992
12-03-2012, 04:00 PM
Bringing Dempster aboard for veteran leadership for younger pitchers on the staff would be ideal, but going more than 2 years on Dempster is asking for trouble. He also seems better suited for the NL given his stuff, though he only played 2 months with Texas this past year with pretty sub-par results in a pennant race.

Based on reports from the mlbtraderumors site several days ago, Dempster rejected a 2 year/$26 million offer from the Brewers, so 3 years/$39 million may do it, but I would hope the Twins would only give a third year as an option and not at $13 million for the third year.

ericchri
12-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Anyone know if there's an official place to look this up? I recall (thus completely untrustworthy) an interview with Dave St. Peter from around April that indicated the revenue sharing situation for the Twins was changing due to Target Field. To my (untrustworthy) recollection, I believe St. Peter indicated the Twins received a large amount from revenue sharing in 2010, since it was determined by the previous financials from the Metrodome. Then the revenue sharing in 2011 was relatively neutral, and in 2012 the Twins started paying in fairly significantly. So out of all of that payroll cut from 2011 to 2012, a good bit of it actually went to revenue sharing, not the owners' pockets.

Granted I suspect they probably could afford to pay much more in payroll, I'm not really arguing that at all. I don't have access to financials, though. But I get a little crosseyed every time year-to-year payrolls are compared to each other in exclusion of everything else.


Edit: Doing some of my own checking, I came across the quote I was thinking of, and I wasn't remembering it quite correctly. From this article, http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/blogs/Around_the_majors.html?cs=3051&c=340212, he's quoted as saying:
On the radio, St. Peter also gave a clear answer to a question many of us have had: How has the teamís revenue sharing picture changed since it left the Metrodome? St. Peter said the Twins were collecting about $20 million in revenue sharing money in their final years at the Dome. After a one-year grace period that teams get when they move into a new ballpark, the Twins paid $10 million into the revenue sharing pot this year.

Thatís a $30 million swing, when comparing the Twins revenues in 2009 and 2011.

SweetOne69
12-03-2012, 04:03 PM
Your recollection is mostly correct except for 2011 being neutral, the payed into Revenue Sharing into 2011 and 2012.

twinsnorth49
12-03-2012, 04:08 PM
Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.

Yeah, I don't get it, and the constant bitching about payroll gives me tired head. We aren't even in Janurary yet, now is not the time to worry about total payroll. I do know one thing, spending money for the sole sake of spending money is a really bad idea, especially when you are talking long term deals. At this point I'm much more worried about our payroll obligations for 2014/2015 then I am for 2013. In a perfect world the Twins would sign a top tier pitcher to a long term deal, and any of the guys who project to be #4/#5's be brought it on one year deals and potentially a two year deal as long as it isn't to expensive.

At the end of the day: Give me Hendriks as our #5 then giving a guy like Dempster 3 years, as there actually is a pretty decent chance Hendriks gives you similar value for about 12 million+ less a year.

Getting somewhat back to the original topic, Hendriks is a way better gamble as similar value as a back end guy than 3/39 for Dempster, no brainer in my opinion. Getting Dempster on those terms definitely fits into the spending money to spend money philosophy.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 04:11 PM
Bringing Dempster aboard for veteran leadership for younger pitchers on the staff would be ideal, but going more than 2 years on Dempster is asking for trouble. He also seems better suited for the NL given his stuff, though he only played 2 months with Texas this past year with pretty sub-par results in a pennant race.

Based on reports from the mlbtraderumors site several days ago, Dempster rejected a 2 year/$26 million offer from the Brewers, so 3 years/$39 million may do it, but I would hope the Twins would only give a third year as an option and not at $13 million for the third year.

If Dempster turned down 2/26 from an NL team I doubt he would agree to 2/26 + 1/13 option from an AL team, unless the buy out on that option was abnormally high.

I think he is going to push for as many years as he can get, as this very well could be his last contract.

TheLeviathan
12-03-2012, 05:20 PM
So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.

Brandon
12-03-2012, 05:35 PM
I would do a 3/39 for him as he is likely to give us 200 ip per year around a 4.00 era (this is why I liked the Pavano deal 2 years ago as he should have given us similare results) but Dempster is likely to k 7or 8 per 9 innings for most the contract. Do it and move on to Myers.

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 05:45 PM
Anyone know if there's an official place to look this up? I recall (thus completely untrustworthy) an interview with Dave St. Peter from around April that indicated the revenue sharing situation for the Twins was changing due to Target Field. To my (untrustworthy) recollection, I believe St. Peter indicated the Twins received a large amount from revenue sharing in 2010, since it was determined by the previous financials from the Metrodome. Then the revenue sharing in 2011 was relatively neutral, and in 2012 the Twins started paying in fairly significantly. So out of all of that payroll cut from 2011 to 2012, a good bit of it actually went to revenue sharing, not the owners' pockets.

Granted I suspect they probably could afford to pay much more in payroll, I'm not really arguing that at all. I don't have access to financials, though. But I get a little crosseyed every time year-to-year payrolls are compared to each other in exclusion of everything else.


Edit: Doing some of my own checking, I came across the quote I was thinking of, and I wasn't remembering it quite correctly. From this article, http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/blogs/Around_the_majors.html?cs=3051&c=340212, he's quoted as saying:
On the radio, St. Peter also gave a clear answer to a question many of us have had: How has the team’s revenue sharing picture changed since it left the Metrodome? St. Peter said the Twins were collecting about $20 million in revenue sharing money in their final years at the Dome. After a one-year grace period that teams get when they move into a new ballpark, the Twins paid $10 million into the revenue sharing pot this year.

That’s a $30 million swing, when comparing the Twins revenues in 2009 and 2011.

Now THAT was actually fantastic info. I learned something there. Thanks for that.

Now, let me ask this question. Does that mean TF is only gonna allow us to raise payroll by 23M from 2007's payroll? Considering that was 6 years ago and how salaries have gone up quite a bit since then (Upton's new ridiculous salary, for example), the new park basically just allowed the Twins to stay more or less at the same pay rate?

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 05:54 PM
So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.

I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

TheLeviathan
12-03-2012, 06:38 PM
I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-03-2012, 07:36 PM
I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.
I think Sanchez is a #2 to be honest as is Haren. Jackson and Marcum are sort of on the fringe of being good #3's as well.

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
12-03-2012, 07:51 PM
I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.
I think Sanchez is a #2 to be honest as is Haren. Jackson and Marcum are sort of on the fringe of being good #3's as well.

Which is better than anything we have. So lets go after em!

Riverbrian
12-03-2012, 08:01 PM
Call me crazy but I think spending 115 million this year would be stupid.

As for Dempster... I'd be happy if Terry Ryan identified one guy... One guy who makes sense for at least 3 years or more and go get him. I don't care what they pay him... I care if they land him. If TR thinks Dempster is that guy... It wouldn't be my choice but Ok...

One guy... And then bargain shop with some prove it deals. One guy who could be on the roster when Meyer hits town. If he signed for a price that makes Vodkadave throw up... I don't care. Pick the guy you like best and get him.

Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.

ThePuck
12-03-2012, 08:05 PM
Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.

You've been pretty vague about that...:-)

twinsnorth49
12-03-2012, 09:00 PM
So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.

It's not about overpaying for Dempster or anyone else, it's about overpaying Dempster for 3 years being wrong. I'm under no illusion it's going to cost to get what we want and we need to pay it, I'm saying what we want shouldn't be Dempster for 3 years.

Brock Beauchamp
12-03-2012, 09:05 PM
I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.

Sanchez is a two as well. After that, the class thins quickly.

John Bonnes
12-03-2012, 09:15 PM
I gotta say, I'm shocked at the low opinions of Dempster. This guy has been a 200 inning horse for something like 5 years. His xFIP each of those years is right around 3.7. Is it just the AL thing? To me, his stats are that of a clear #2 guy. Where is all the pessimism about him coming from? It seems a little crazy. What are you guys looking at?

ashburyjohn
12-03-2012, 09:18 PM
I gotta say, I'm shocked at the low opinions of Dempster. This guy has been a 200 inning horse for something like 5 years. His xFIP each of those years is right around 3.7. Is it just the AL thing? To me, his stats are that of a clear #2 guy. Where is all the pessimism about him coming from? It seems a little crazy. What are you guys looking at?

Age, and the assumption a 3 year contract is needed in order to land him. Two years, as a bridge to the next contending team, would be a different story I think.

Brock Beauchamp
12-03-2012, 09:19 PM
I gotta say, I'm shocked at the low opinions of Dempster. This guy has been a 200 inning horse for something like 5 years. His xFIP each of those years is right around 3.7. Is it just the AL thing? To me, his stats are that of a clear #2 guy. Where is all the pessimism about him coming from? It seems a little crazy. What are you guys looking at?

I think people are more down on his age and a three year contract than Dempster himself.

ashburyjohn
12-03-2012, 10:50 PM
I gotta say, I'm shocked at the low opinions of Dempster. This guy has been a 200 inning horse for something like 5 years. His xFIP each of those years is right around 3.7. Is it just the AL thing? To me, his stats are that of a clear #2 guy. Where is all the pessimism about him coming from? It seems a little crazy. What are you guys looking at?

I think people are more down on his age and a three year contract than Dempster himself.

I like the way you think. :)

Brock Beauchamp
12-04-2012, 07:38 AM
I gotta say, I'm shocked at the low opinions of Dempster. This guy has been a 200 inning horse for something like 5 years. His xFIP each of those years is right around 3.7. Is it just the AL thing? To me, his stats are that of a clear #2 guy. Where is all the pessimism about him coming from? It seems a little crazy. What are you guys looking at?

I think people are more down on his age and a three year contract than Dempster himself.

I like the way you think. :)

Heh, yep. I know it's his decline phase and all that but I'd like Dempster at two years. I'm really torn on three. He'd be 38 at the end of that contract. I don't see how that would work out well for the Twins but they're going to have to pay somebody too much money.

mike wants wins
12-04-2012, 08:25 AM
If you never overpay for a player, how would you handicap the future by doing so?that is, if they will not sign a player this year for too many years, so as to have money available in the future, why would you expect them to spend it in the future? There is an established market for free agents, ans those dollars are not going down. Why do you care if they break even, or make a lot of money?

ericchri
12-04-2012, 08:58 AM
Call me crazy but I think spending 115 million this year would be stupid.

As for Dempster... I'd be happy if Terry Ryan identified one guy... One guy who makes sense for at least 3 years or more and go get him. I don't care what they pay him... I care if they land him. If TR thinks Dempster is that guy... It wouldn't be my choice but Ok...

One guy... And then bargain shop with some prove it deals. One guy who could be on the roster when Meyer hits town. If he signed for a price that makes Vodkadave throw up... I don't care. Pick the guy you like best and get him.

Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.

This is probably where I'm at, too. I'd like to have somebody for at least 4 years honestly, but I'm not sure who I'd want to give that to. I'd love Greinke or Sanchez, but I can't imagine the Twins outbidding the rest of the league for either. After those two I'm not sure what to think. You've got older guys (Marcum, Dempster) or inconsistent guys (Jackson) or hurt guys (Haren). That's perfectly normal options for free agency, but it's hard to fall in love with any of them.

Brock Beauchamp
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM
This is probably where I'm at, too. I'd like to have somebody for at least 4 years honestly, but I'm not sure who I'd want to give that to. I'd love Greinke or Sanchez, but I can't imagine the Twins outbidding the rest of the league for either. After those two I'm not sure what to think. You've got older guys (Marcum, Dempster) or inconsistent guys (Jackson) or hurt guys (Haren). That's perfectly normal options for free agency, but it's hard to fall in love with any of them.

It depends on the guy. I'd love to have Jackson, Sanchez, or Greinke for four years. Dempster and Marcum, not so much.

Either way, Ryan needs to overpay for somebody. It's an ugly situation to be in but that's what five years of bad drafts (at least in the pitching department) gets a team.

TheLeviathan
12-04-2012, 03:51 PM
Sanchez is a two as well. After that, the class thins quickly.

Given his durability issues and lack of anything particularly flashy about his NL numbers, I would feel more comfortable classifying him as a very good 3.

Brock Beauchamp
12-04-2012, 04:07 PM
Sanchez is a two as well. After that, the class thins quickly.

Given his durability issues and lack of anything particularly flashy about his NL numbers, I would feel more comfortable classifying him as a very good 3.

Eh, I don't know if I'd even argue with that. Tomato, tomahto.

TheLeviathan
12-04-2012, 04:22 PM
Eh, I don't know if I'd even argue with that. Tomato, tomahto.

I only argue it because it means I have trouble with calling him "frontline"

Brock Beauchamp
12-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Eh, I don't know if I'd even argue with that. Tomato, tomahto.

I only argue it because it means I have trouble with calling him "frontline"

I'm pretty liberal with #2/#3 rankings. To me, a number #3 is a guy who often pitches like a #2 but can't be relied upon to be well above average every year (say, Brad Radke). I think Sanchez is a little better than that (but not by much).

ThePuck
12-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Eh, I don't know if I'd even argue with that. Tomato, tomahto.

I only argue it because it means I have trouble with calling him "frontline"


I'm pretty liberal with #2/#3 rankings. To me, a number #3 is a guy who often pitches like a #2 but can't be relied upon to be well above average every year (say, Brad Radke). I think Sanchez is a little better than that (but not by much).

Hard for us to recognize, seeing as how we haven't had any in so long :-)

sotafan
12-04-2012, 04:48 PM
NO, NO, NO, NEVER. He is Pavano, NO. I would rather sign no one and go with what we got then sign Dempster. He got tore apart in the AL last year. I would rather see Franky come back and that is making me puke in my mouth.

Riverbrian
12-04-2012, 05:01 PM
Call me crazy but I think spending 115 million this year would be stupid.

As for Dempster... I'd be happy if Terry Ryan identified one guy... One guy who makes sense for at least 3 years or more and go get him. I don't care what they pay him... I care if they land him. If TR thinks Dempster is that guy... It wouldn't be my choice but Ok...

One guy... And then bargain shop with some prove it deals. One guy who could be on the roster when Meyer hits town. If he signed for a price that makes Vodkadave throw up... I don't care. Pick the guy you like best and get him.

Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.

This is probably where I'm at, too. I'd like to have somebody for at least 4 years honestly, but I'm not sure who I'd want to give that to. I'd love Greinke or Sanchez, but I can't imagine the Twins outbidding the rest of the league for either. After those two I'm not sure what to think. You've got older guys (Marcum, Dempster) or inconsistent guys (Jackson) or hurt guys (Haren). That's perfectly normal options for free agency, but it's hard to fall in love with any of them.

Yeah... It's like shopping in Warroad... The stores only have so much to offer. Still... It's where the shopping must be done. I wonder what Terry thinks of the winter meetings. Meetings and phone calls with people all day... Agents... GM's... Reporters hounding you for information... Mostly talking with folks who want to take advantage of you at every turn.

From the outside it seems like a fun exciting time but I think for A GM... It would be a stressful time. I'd probably need an IV filled with scotch to wind down.

Top Gun
12-04-2012, 05:07 PM
We don't need no pitching, just let polhads have all the money and be happy watching the last place Twins for another 4 years.

Top Gun
12-04-2012, 05:11 PM
Warroad is a boom town!

TheLeviathan
12-04-2012, 05:13 PM
I'm pretty liberal with #2/#3 rankings. To me, a number #3 is a guy who often pitches like a #2 but can't be relied upon to be well above average every year (say, Brad Radke). I think Sanchez is a little better than that (but not by much).

Which is fair. My original point was more that if you're waiting to overpay only a "frontline" guy - it's pretty much Grienke you're waiting for. I can see your case for Sanchez, but I wouldn't classify him there. And that's primarily why he'd be on my list of guys not to overpay for. (overpaying him to be a class of pitcher I don't agree he's in)

Top Gun
12-04-2012, 05:27 PM
I don't think you can overpay for a pitcher unless he gets TJ. In 4 years pitching prices will go up another 10m a season.

Shane Wahl
12-04-2012, 07:32 PM
A few months ago I said the Twins should try to sign Dempster for 2/22 to 2/25 with an option year. I would be willing to "overpay" for him at 2/30 with a 15 million option and 2 million buyout. Absolutely. The guy is NOT a 4 or 5 starter. How can anyone even say that? Maybe if you don't pay attention to stats and performance . . .

Shane Wahl
12-04-2012, 07:35 PM
Would you rather spend 6/120 for Greinke or 3/40 for Jackson and 3/20 for Marcum?

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
12-04-2012, 07:49 PM
The big name Pitchers (most of them) will not sign until Peavy gets his massive contract. That contract is going to shape most of the pitching market.

diehardtwinsfan
12-04-2012, 08:21 PM
The big name Pitchers (most of them) will not sign until Peavy gets his massive contract. That contract is going to shape most of the pitching market.

Peavy?

twinsnorth49
12-04-2012, 09:18 PM
A few months ago I said the Twins should try to sign Dempster for 2/22 to 2/25 with an option year. I would be willing to "overpay" for him at 2/30 with a 15 million option and 2 million buyout. Absolutely. The guy is NOT a 4 or 5 starter. How can anyone even say that? Maybe if you don't pay attention to stats and performance . . .

I think most people just have an issue with 3 years guaranteed, he will be 38 by then. I would happily go along with the above suggestions, just not for 3 years, I think the risk of a precipitous decline in the 3rd is too great.

70charger
12-05-2012, 12:32 AM
The big name Pitchers (most of them) will not sign until Peavy gets his massive contract. That contract is going to shape most of the pitching market.

Peavy?

I'm willing to bet he meant Grienke.