PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Q&A with Darren Wolfson



PseudoSABR
10-25-2013, 01:15 PM
Wolfson (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/QA_with_Twins_GM_Terry_Ryan_on_plans_for_free_agen cy_and_other_topics102513) gives a pretty good interview.

Lots to chew on: clarification on Molitor, Mauer to firstbase, sabermetrics, and everyone's favorite, free agent pitching.

gunnarthor
10-25-2013, 02:14 PM
Nice interview. Seems he's confident in his plans.

I hope Plouffe has a strong year next season. He's frustrating.

mike wants wins
10-25-2013, 02:53 PM
Great interview. He's making himself accessible. I appreciate that.

This part was interesting to me:

Why not hire some of their guys? Find their No. 6 or 7 guy and make him the No.4 guy under you?
Why don't I just copy what they're doing? I have a lot of trust in our guys. We'll get this thing squared up.

gunnarthor
10-25-2013, 04:10 PM
Why not hire some of their guys? Find their No. 6 or 7 guy and make him the No.4 guy under you?
Why don't I just copy what they're doing? I have a lot of trust in our guys. We'll get this thing squared up.

Yeah, I thought it was interesting too. And this is where the Ryan and anti-Ryan crowds will clash so I didn't post it. I agree with Ryan, others don't. It seems that people are so dug in now it doesn't really matter anymore.

twinsnorth49
10-25-2013, 05:45 PM
Well, the Giants overwhelmed Lincecum. I think that contract will affect the market.
I don't know about that. We say that every year when a guy signs early. Everyone tries to portray that as the market. I don't necessarily agree with that. That's one instance. There will be a couple (contracts) that come into play this winter, or fall, and we will all grasp some. But that doesn't mean it sets the market.


Usually hate to play the cyncic but it sounds more to me like he's hoping it doesn't set the market, because he won't be in it if it does. Not that I would have advocted signing Lincecum to that deal but if that's what it takes for him, it's not going to get much better.

TheLeviathan
10-25-2013, 06:26 PM
Straightforward, but I disagree when he said they never needed to use free agency during their last run. He's confusing need with desire, there were certainly needs.

pierre75275
10-28-2013, 12:56 PM
I found it intresting he said Trevor would get a contract but declined to answer on Swarsak and Duensing. I wonder why that was? Was he hopin for more bargaining power? Or is he not planning on signing them?

SpiritofVodkaDave
10-28-2013, 01:27 PM
I found it intresting he said Trevor would get a contract but declined to answer on Swarsak and Duensing. I wonder why that was? Was he hopin for more bargaining power? Or is he not planning on signing them?
I wouldn't sign either one of them, Swarzak is the definition of replaceable in the bullpen, and Duensing at this point is a mediocre LOOGY. With the pen being the one real strength, replacing both of those guys should be rather easy.

jharaldson
10-28-2013, 02:29 PM
Do what the A's do: sign a bat to platoon with Plouffe and have him only start vs. lefties.

You could do that. That's a possibility. I'm not saying that's something that has been discussed. It could be. I'd like to think we can find guys who can play 140, 150 games. That's one of our problems. We've had very little continuity in any lineup. We've had guys bouncing all over. I'm not saying you couldn't put (Eduardo) Escobar over there. You could. Escobar's got some pop in his bat. There's a spot for him if he wants to take it. So, there's always that possibility.

I find it kind of odd that Terry is unable to even comprehend a question involving signing a free agent. Doogie asks about signing a guy to platoon with Plouffe and somehow Terry didn't hear the "Sign Somebody" but instead heard "Play someone on your roster, maybe Escobar". This is probably just another example of how far the free agency process is from his mind when thinking about improving this team.

Wookiee of the Year
10-28-2013, 02:35 PM
Good interview. Wolfson did a good job of throwing out specific names and situations and making Ryan respond.

I agree with twinsnorth49--the response to Doogie's comment on Lincecum was pretty telling. Sounds like Ryan might once again be surprised by how high the market will go this year. (Or hopefully, he's right and Lincecum's an isolated case. But I'd bet more on the former than the latter.)

I've also noticed a pattern in Ryan's interviews where he makes a lot of references to "taking the phone calls" from other GMs, but he rarely says anything about making the calls. I don't know if it's a verbal tic or even intentional to keep people from knowing his priorities, but it does seem to suggest he's pretty passive on the trade market, which has been my impression.

The other exchange I found noteworthy:


How you would classify this free-agent pitching class?
It's OK. It'll be very competitive. There will be 25 clubs in on almost any quality starter. There's not enough to go around. We all know that. You'll probably be able to get one of them, hopefully. There's a couple guys out there that need to have their futures decided with an option and possibly a tender.That sounds like a reference to Ubaldo Jimenez to me (does anyone else fit that "option and possibly a tender" description?). I wonder if TR's thinking Jimenez?

Seth Stohs
10-28-2013, 02:44 PM
I found it intresting he said Trevor would get a contract but declined to answer on Swarsak and Duensing. I wonder why that was? Was he hopin for more bargaining power? Or is he not planning on signing them?

My thought is it means that both could be trade possibilities and he doesn't want to give away too much. If he says, "No, we're going to non-tender them." why would anyone trade for them? I'm more surprised with his response about Plouffe, not that it is a surprise (it's obvious to tender him), just that he actually said it.

Seth Stohs
10-28-2013, 02:46 PM
Well, the Giants overwhelmed Lincecum. I think that contract will affect the market.
I don't know about that. We say that every year when a guy signs early. Everyone tries to portray that as the market. I don't necessarily agree with that. That's one instance. There will be a couple (contracts) that come into play this winter, or fall, and we will all grasp some. But that doesn't mean it sets the market.


Usually hate to play the cyncic but it sounds more to me like he's hoping it doesn't set the market, because he won't be in it if it does. Not that I would have advocted signing Lincecum to that deal but if that's what it takes for him, it's not going to get much better.



I think he's right though. There are always these early signings and people gasp around wondering if it'll set the market, but then things come back down. Even with the economic gain (the $25M in additional revenues - of which $13M would equal about 52%, I don't think that Lincecum sets it. It was a crazy deal by the Giants, and teams know it.

Seth Stohs
10-28-2013, 02:52 PM
Great interview. He's making himself accessible. I appreciate that.

This part was interesting to me:

Why not hire some of their guys? Find their No. 6 or 7 guy and make him the No.4 guy under you?
Why don't I just copy what they're doing? I have a lot of trust in our guys. We'll get this thing squared up.

I found this to be a strange question. First, this isn't realistic. How would TR know who the #6 stat guy is for the Rays? Who would know that? I get it. Bring in an outside voice, but there is more than one way to win and develop.

gunnarthor
10-28-2013, 02:53 PM
I don't know if it's a verbal tic or even intentional to keep people from knowing his priorities, but it does seem to suggest he's pretty passive on the trade market, which has been my impression.

Has Ryan been passive on the trade market? In the two years he's been back, he's traded Slowey, Liriano, Valencia, Span, Revere, Butera and Morneau. Not sure if that's a passive trade pattern.

pierre75275
10-28-2013, 03:08 PM
I wouldn't sign either one of them, Swarzak is the definition of replaceable in the bullpen, and Duensing at this point is a mediocre LOOGY. With the pen being the one real strength, replacing both of those guys should be rather easy.

I agree about Duensing. I think there will be cheaper equal options on the market. Swarzak I would keep in the same role however, because he is projected at 800k. I would NOT under any circumstances start him though.

Thrylos
10-28-2013, 03:27 PM
I think he's right though. There are always these early signings and people gasp around wondering if it'll set the market, but then things come back down. Even with the economic gain (the $25M in additional revenues - of which $13M would equal about 52%, I don't think that Lincecum sets it. It was a crazy deal by the Giants, and teams know it.

Here is how the 52% (of the Twins' revenue going into payroll) should look like:

2013 Revenue: $215M plus that $25M = $240 M.
52% of that is $125 M.
The Twins are in the hook for around $60 M (including arbitration $ for Duensing, Swarzak and Plouffe)

this leaves Ryan $65 M to play with

65 not 15.

Lots one can do with $65 Million in a year, but you got to commit that 52% of revenues to payroll. I am convinced that if the Twins spend that $ wisely, they could be contending in 2014. However, I am almost convinced that Ryan does not know how to do this.

nicksaviking
10-28-2013, 03:28 PM
I've also noticed a pattern in Ryan's interviews where he makes a lot of references to "taking the phone calls" from other GMs, but he rarely says anything about making the calls. I don't know if it's a verbal tic or even intentional to keep people from knowing his priorities, but it does seem to suggest he's pretty passive on the trade market, which has been my impression.


No, I think you are correct. Ryan stated in an interview near the trade deadline that he doesn't initiate any trades, but instead he waits for others to call him. I'm sure he thinks that gives him the upper hand in negotiations and it may, but I agree it's too passive and he probably misses out on other valuable conversations.

mike wants wins
10-28-2013, 03:45 PM
I found this to be a strange question. First, this isn't realistic. How would TR know who the #6 stat guy is for the Rays? Who would know that? I get it. Bring in an outside voice, but there is more than one way to win and develop.

I respect you a lot, Seth, but you know this wasn't about hiring "the number 6 guy". His answer was "I won't bring in outside guys".

gunnarthor
10-28-2013, 03:49 PM
I respect you a lot, Seth, but you know this wasn't about hiring "the number 6 guy". His answer was "I won't bring in outside guys".

Actually, I think his answer was "we're smart enough to fix this."

mike wants wins
10-28-2013, 03:50 PM
Actually, I think his answer was "we're smart enough to fix this."

Same answer, different sides of the coin.

notoriousgod71
10-28-2013, 04:11 PM
Actually, I think his answer was "we're smart enough to fix this."

Or maybe it was "Nothing is broken. What's to fix?"

Boom Boom
10-28-2013, 04:15 PM
I'm glad that Ryan feels confident that his team can turn the ship around, but when he says "we'll get this thing squared up" the "we" he's referring to is largely the same bunch that bungled it in the first place.

twinsnorth49
10-28-2013, 08:33 PM
I think he's right though. There are always these early signings and people gasp around wondering if it'll set the market, but then things come back down. Even with the economic gain (the $25M in additional revenues - of which $13M would equal about 52%, I don't think that Lincecum sets it. It was a crazy deal by the Giants, and teams know it.

Perhaps he is and yes it is a common occurrence, although by no means a given. I just have this sinking feeling that he's saying it with his fingers crossed behind his back, because he ain't going there.

Brock Beauchamp
10-29-2013, 07:47 AM
Lots one can do with $65 Million in a year, but you got to commit that 52% of revenues to payroll. I am convinced that if the Twins spend that $ wisely, they could be contending in 2014. However, I am almost convinced that Ryan does not know how to do this.

I think it's a bad idea to continually run yourself against your budget ceiling. It leaves no wiggle room for improvisation should something good or bad happen in 2014-2015. It also can crunch you when your young, good players start asking for raises and/or extensions.

On the other hand, if the Twins have a ceiling of $110m+ right now, they should be no lower than $90m at the end of this offseason.

That's still plenty of money to shore up this MLB team. Phil Hughes, Josh Johnson, and a few minor offensive bats can be had for $30m a year.

nicksaviking
10-29-2013, 10:25 AM
Perhaps he is and yes it is a common occurrence, although by no means a given. I just have this sinking feeling that he's saying it with his fingers crossed behind his back, because he ain't going there.

To be fair, I think Ryan means it and believes in his guys. I just also think it's fair for us to not have the same faith in his crew and demand better results seeing as there are plenty of resources available.

Winston Smith
10-29-2013, 01:02 PM
IMO it's an ego thing with Ryan. He wants to prove that he can do it without all the stats and spending a lot of money.

Pohlad has said the money is there (true or not) so even spending 30m to be at 90m payroll, well under the Pohlad stated 52%, might not make us a contender but should certainly make the team much easier to watch for the fans.

Note to Terry Ryan and Jim Pohlad, the last 3 years have been very hard to watch, please improve this team!!!

gunnarthor
10-29-2013, 01:18 PM
IMO it's an ego thing with Ryan. He wants to prove that he can do it without all the stats and spending a lot of money.


In all honesty, how can you think it's an ego thing? The guy literally prevented a fawning book to be written about him. I'm sure he believes in his staff to fix this since they've done it before and he was the only small payroll GM to keep his team successful while turning over the teams nucleus.

It's not like he took over a team with an obvious quick fix solution. The Twins couldn't have spent their way out of this mess.

spycake
10-29-2013, 01:21 PM
I think it's a bad idea to continually run yourself against your budget ceiling. It leaves no wiggle room for improvisation should something good or bad happen in 2014-2015. It also can crunch you when your young, good players start asking for raises and/or extensions.

It's going to be 3-4 years before the Twins have any decent young players looking for anything more than token raises. Probably 5-6 years until any homegrown talent could look for "star" money.

I'm all for leaving a little wiggle room in the budget, but $30+ million is more than "wiggle room." I'd rather prove NOW that this team and GM are willing to spend, and willing (and able) to use free agency to improve the team. That's going to be a lot more important to the next good Twins team than leaving extra payroll space over the next 5 years.

spycake
10-29-2013, 01:27 PM
In all honesty, how can you think it's an ego thing? The guy literally prevented a fawning book to be written about him. I'm sure he believes in his staff to fix this since they've done it before and he was the only small payroll GM to keep his team successful while turning over the teams nucleus.

It's not like he took over a team with an obvious quick fix solution. The Twins couldn't have spent their way out of this mess.

I don't think its ego-driven necessarily. But I do get a dismissive "I'll do it my way, thanks" vibe from TR. Which was great when they emerged from the wilderness to have a good run in the low-budget Dome... less encouraging when we are lost in the wilderness again, under budget, and better players are always 2-3 years away.

clutterheart
10-29-2013, 05:35 PM
Go twins!! Get better-soon!

Kwak
10-29-2013, 06:43 PM
IMO it's an ego thing with Ryan. He wants to prove that he can do it without all the stats and spending a lot of money.

Pohlad has said the money is there (true or not) so even spending 30m to be at 90m payroll, well under the Pohlad stated 52%, might not make us a contender but should certainly make the team much easier to watch for the fans.

Note to Terry Ryan and Jim Pohlad, the last 3 years have been very hard to watch, please improve this team!!!

The contract extension for Gardenhire signifies that Pohlad is supporting "the plan". So far that plan has been replace expensive veterans with much cheaper young players. I fully expect this "plan" to be continued. The statement "the money is there" is vague and non-committal. A multi-year deal means the "team" need not focus on adding a few extra wins in 2014 at the expense of following "the plan".

PseudoSABR
10-30-2013, 12:10 AM
So far that plan has been replace expensive veterans with much cheaper young players. I fully expect this "plan" to be continued.Do you sincerely believe that's the "plan" Ryan sold the Pohlad's on?

Brock Beauchamp
10-30-2013, 08:20 AM
It's going to be 3-4 years before the Twins have any decent young players looking for anything more than token raises. Probably 5-6 years until any homegrown talent could look for "star" money.

I'm all for leaving a little wiggle room in the budget, but $30+ million is more than "wiggle room." I'd rather prove NOW that this team and GM are willing to spend, and willing (and able) to use free agency to improve the team. That's going to be a lot more important to the next good Twins team than leaving extra payroll space over the next 5 years.

When I say "wiggle room", I don't only mean player raises.

What if the current crop of Twins prospects come up and churn out an 85 win season despite a guy like Phil Hughes falling on his face? At that point, wouldn't you like an extra $15-20m to go find a good starter in the offseason? What if the pitching succeeds but the middle infield is a disaster? Wouldn't you want some available cash to shore up that deficiency?

This team can spend plenty and not go anywhere near their theoretical ceiling of $120m. And at this point, I see no reason for them to push anywhere close to that number. Leave space to add necessary pieces down the road as you get closer to competitive baseball.

mike wants wins
10-30-2013, 08:31 AM
Do you sincerely believe that's the "plan" Ryan sold the Pohlad's on?

I do, yes. That is part of the plan. I sincerely believe that.

mike wants wins
10-30-2013, 08:38 AM
When I say "wiggle room", I don't only mean player raises.

What if the current crop of Twins prospects come up and churn out an 85 win season despite a guy like Phil Hughes falling on his face? At that point, wouldn't you like an extra $15-20m to go find a good starter in the offseason? What if the pitching succeeds but the middle infield is a disaster? Wouldn't you want some available cash to shore up that deficiency?

This team can spend plenty and not go anywhere near their theoretical ceiling of $120m. And at this point, I see no reason for them to push anywhere close to that number. Leave space to add necessary pieces down the road as you get closer to competitive baseball.


What is more likely? Signing legit MLB players, and having them be good, or having this same exact roster win 85 games?

gunnarthor
10-30-2013, 09:19 AM
What is more likely? Signing legit MLB players, and having them be good, or having this same exact roster win 85 games?

Except he didn't say this roster.

mike wants wins
10-30-2013, 09:20 AM
I guess not, but which prospects are coming up this year? And, what is more likely, those prospects come up and win 85, without spending ANY money on pitching, or that bringing in MLB pitchers and hitters will win more games? What's more likely?

Brock Beauchamp
10-30-2013, 09:38 AM
I guess not, but which prospects are coming up this year? And, what is more likely, those prospects come up and win 85, without spending ANY money on pitching, or that bringing in MLB pitchers and hitters will win more games? What's more likely?

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear but I'm not advocating fielding this same roster in 2014. I mentioned Phil Hughes in the post, which suggests that I'm all for spending money this offseason to pick up quality players.

But I think running up to the theoretical $120m ceiling just because you can is a mistake. When a team is this bad and is relying on prospects so heavily to succeed, you simply don't know what holes you'll have in 2015. At that point, the prudent move is to spend some money this year (maybe $20m), spend a little more next season (maybe another $10-15m), then make a big push when you know what you need to become a playoff team.

gunnarthor
10-30-2013, 09:47 AM
I guess not, but which prospects are coming up this year? And, what is more likely, those prospects come up and win 85, without spending ANY money on pitching, or that bringing in MLB pitchers and hitters will win more games? What's more likely?

Well, every year the Twins are going to bring in pitchers and hitters. As for rookies debuting next year, I'd bet that Sano, Rosario, Meyer and May all get up next year. (Personally, I think Buxton comes up this year, too, but that's just a wild guess/hope thing).

I think what Brock is trying to say is that you don't want to make a signing now that hurts the teams flexibility when that core needs some help. I know you like Ellsbury, for example, so if the Twins spent a 7/142 (Carl Crawford like deal, which is what Boras has suggested as a starting point), the Twins would be paying over 21m/year for a guy who will be a declining left fielder (and perhaps declining quickly based on his skill set) when the core is ready to compete and getting raises. I think the Twins would be better off by using FA to plug holes that a good team has - think of 2010, when the Twins added a 4WAR pitcher, a 25HR DH and a strong MI to a pretty decent nucleus.

Boom Boom
10-30-2013, 09:49 AM
Maybe I wasn't entirely clear but I'm not advocating fielding this same roster in 2014. I mentioned Phil Hughes in the post, which suggests that I'm all for spending money this offseason to pick up quality players.

But I think running up to the theoretical $120m ceiling just because you can is a mistake. When a team is this bad and is relying on prospects so heavily to succeed, you simply don't know what holes you'll have in 2015. At that point, the prudent move is to spend some money this year (maybe $20m), spend a little more next season (maybe another $10-15m), then make a big push when you know what you need to become a playoff team.

It should be obvious what they need to become a playoff team - starting pitching, both on the front-line and depth in the minors. They need a couple good pitchers right now, as well as more SP talent in the high minors so they're not demolished because someone reverts to Blackburn-levels or needs Tommy John surgery.

mike wants wins
10-30-2013, 09:57 AM
Brock: I don't see anyone arguing for them to spend up to 120MM this year, or more. Straw man. I think you and I agree on the path.

gunnarthor: I just don't think, if they sign one good pitcher, and choo or ellsbury, and Sano is good, and Buxton is good, that they are 4+ years away. I think Ellsbury or Choo are still effective then. And, yes, if you are EVER going to sign a FA, you take a risk on decline. I'd rather take that risk, than never signing a good FA because you are afraid.

Wookiee of the Year
10-30-2013, 10:14 AM
Maybe I wasn't entirely clear but I'm not advocating fielding this same roster in 2014. I mentioned Phil Hughes in the post, which suggests that I'm all for spending money this offseason to pick up quality players.

But I think running up to the theoretical $120m ceiling just because you can is a mistake. When a team is this bad and is relying on prospects so heavily to succeed, you simply don't know what holes you'll have in 2015. At that point, the prudent move is to spend some money this year (maybe $20m), spend a little more next season (maybe another $10-15m), then make a big push when you know what you need to become a playoff team.
I pretty much agree with this. If payroll is higher in 2014 than 2013, I'll likely be satisfied. Something in the $90-100 million range makes the most sense to me.

I do think, given the large payroll space this year but not much chance we'll contend next year, it makes sense to approach guys looking for one-year deals to see if they can have a bounceback year. If so, you can always flip them at the deadline for prospects and further build toward the future and without hurting payroll moving forward. Guys like Josh Johnson, Johan Santana, and Colby Lewis would be at the top of my target list. I'm hoping we get one longer-term piece, someone like Jimenez or Hughes, but some one-year upside moves could prove smart investments.

Brock Beauchamp
10-30-2013, 10:18 AM
I think what Brock is trying to say is that you don't want to make a signing now that hurts the teams flexibility when that core needs some help. I know you like Ellsbury, for example, so if the Twins spent a 7/142 (Carl Crawford like deal, which is what Boras has suggested as a starting point), the Twins would be paying over 21m/year for a guy who will be a declining left fielder (and perhaps declining quickly based on his skill set) when the core is ready to compete and getting raises. I think the Twins would be better off by using FA to plug holes that a good team has - think of 2010, when the Twins added a 4WAR pitcher, a 25HR DH and a strong MI to a pretty decent nucleus.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

Though I'm not even saying the Twins shouldn't be looking for an Ellsbury-type (I don't think Ellsbury is a great fit but that's just my opinion). I'm only suggesting that spending money just because it exists and is available is a bad idea.

That doesn't mean you go out and spend no money; it means you leave yourself some room for when the team actually has the potential to get good and you need another player or two to push it to the playoffs.

And that's why I'm pushing for the Twins to go after Hughes this offseason. I think he has a significant upside, won't break the bank, and won't require 1-2 decline-phase years to get him.

Brock Beauchamp
10-30-2013, 10:21 AM
Brock: I don't see anyone arguing for them to spend up to 120MM this year, or more. Straw man. I think you and I agree on the path.

People have brought up the fact that the Twins should have $60m in open budget and strongly implied that they should spend it... all of it. I'm not saying you are advocating that strategy but there are certainly people who have advocated it.

Obviously, pretty much everyone here agrees that the Twins need better players and they're not going to fill all the holes via the farm system in the next 24 months. My belief is that it's better to get there slowly; a smart pick-up this offseason, another 1-2 next season, maybe a final piece the third.

I want to see improvement, for sure... But I don't need a playoff run in 2014 if it hamstrings the team in 2015-2017 when the team should be a legitimate contender if the prospects pan out.

mike wants wins
10-30-2013, 11:54 AM
I would endorse adding 1-2 good players at a time, not 5....which is why I think they should have added one last year. I also don't "need" a playoff run next year, but not losing 90 games would be good, trying to not lose 90 would be good.

Oxtung
10-30-2013, 12:45 PM
Leaving money on the table makes no sense. It doesn't get saved and used later. You're just wasting resources.

If you want to have $30million available 2 years from now then structure the contracts to make it happen. You could front load contracts now or overspend to get a player expected to sign for 3 years to instead sign for 2.

There are ways to improve the team in the present and still have money available in the future without wasting resources.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear but I'm not advocating fielding this same roster in 2014. I mentioned Phil Hughes in the post, which suggests that I'm all for spending money this offseason to pick up quality players.

But I think running up to the theoretical $120m ceiling just because you can is a mistake. When a team is this bad and is relying on prospects so heavily to succeed, you simply don't know what holes you'll have in 2015. At that point, the prudent move is to spend some money this year (maybe $20m), spend a little more next season (maybe another $10-15m), then make a big push when you know what you need to become a playoff team.

spycake
10-31-2013, 12:24 PM
When I say "wiggle room", I don't only mean player raises.

I was responding to both points -- you previously brought up player raises, but they aren't really an issue for the next 5 years at least.

I agree that we don't have to get the payroll up to $120 million or whatever in one offseason.

If Ryan can add $30 million to next year's payroll (bringing it back to $90 million according to Jeremy's chart), that would be a huge step in the right direction. We just haven't ever seen those kinds of moves from him before, which has me nervous.

Kwak
10-31-2013, 01:42 PM
Do you sincerely believe that's the "plan" Ryan sold the Pohlad's on?

No, I always post somebody else's opinions--especially those with which I disagree.

Major Leauge Ready
10-31-2013, 05:01 PM
Leaving money on the table makes no sense. It doesn't get saved and used later. You're just wasting resources.

If you want to have $30million available 2 years from now then structure the contracts to make it happen. You could front load contracts now or overspend to get a player expected to sign for 3 years to instead sign for 2.

There are ways to improve the team in the present and still have money available in the future without wasting resources.

So, is it fair to say that you think every team should spend every dollar they have every year? In other words, Houston should go spend $70-80M this off season.

Trevor0333
10-31-2013, 07:09 PM
I wouldn't sign either one of them, Swarzak is the definition of replaceable in the bullpen, and Duensing at this point is a mediocre LOOGY. With the pen being the one real strength, replacing both of those guys should be rather easy.

Duesning yes, you are really discounting how good Swarzak was last year. Yes the teams biggest strength is RHP bullpen guys so that may make him more replaceable but he really pitched pretty well IMO.

Trevor0333
10-31-2013, 07:19 PM
By now pretty much everyone agrees & knows you can't build a winner through free agency. You dont want to hand out excessively long contracts, things change too much from year to year.

However when 1 aspect or portion of your team is so bad it completely brings down the rest combined with having nothing really ready in the minors to plug those holes. You have to augment the roster through FA. When you have a cheap roster where the young players you believe you would like to keep long term aren't eligible for FA for multiple years. How are you not adding talent (Starting pitching) on smaller length 2-3 year deals that will be expiring before you expect these other players salaries to grow? How does pocketing that help anything but your draft position.

The very most frustrating & rippable part of Terry Ryan's logic is every season we hear the "we know we need to add some pitching, so we expect to be active on a few players" Then every year the 1st guy signs there is a massive sticker shock and they sign Mike Pelfrey's to1 year deals to be terrible. How do you misjudge the market that badly every season? With the new TV money teams are going to spend more than they expect every year, so what if our staff sucks & the young guys arent ready being terrible is acceptable when there is room on the payroll left? It's completely redicilous.

Trevor0333
10-31-2013, 07:24 PM
Leaving money on the table makes no sense. It doesn't get saved and used later. You're just wasting resources.

If you want to have $30million available 2 years from now then structure the contracts to make it happen. You could front load contracts now or overspend to get a player expected to sign for 3 years to instead sign for 2.

There are ways to improve the team in the present and still have money available in the future without wasting resources.

I agree with this so much, why are things not done now to help save in he future allowing more to be spent on player salaries?

Hmm we didnt like the pitchers available this year, we have 30 mill in unspent approved payroll this year. Heres a novel idea, lets sign a guy to a massively front loaded contract or lets redo Mauers deal and take 5 mill off each year and front load it all into this season?

Lets be a little creative here.

Kwak
10-31-2013, 07:38 PM
Why do we continue to read this blather about "can't build a team entirely through free agency"? No one has advocated that, nor has any team attempted it. But there have been some excellent teams that have used free agents very successfully--we watched the final four teams this past playoffs do just that.

This issue called blocking? Non-existent. Two-year contracts? To sign somebody the Twins won't want in three years is nonsense, considering the team is in the rebuild phase. Sign quality--players the Twins will want three plus year--or don't bother! Reclamation projects? What for?--welfare for baseball players? Are there still posters who want to follow a team (but seats!) for the (marginal talent) that was presented this past summer? It makes no sense. Raise the standards. C+ players should not be used as the standard if putting a winner on the field is the goal.

goulik
11-01-2013, 06:18 PM
In all honesty, how can you think it's an ego thing? The guy literally prevented a fawning book to be written about him. I'm sure he believes in his staff to fix this since they've done it before and he was the only small payroll GM to keep his team successful while turning over the teams nucleus.

It's not like he took over a team with an obvious quick fix solution. The Twins couldn't have spent their way out of this mess.

I have met TR. He just stood in the stands like a fan watching spring training and didn't even say anything more than "no thanks" to the guy with the petition to fire the whole front office and all the coaches. He was humble and down to earth chatting with me and another guy about baseball and life in general. He was just another guy that likes baseball. Everyone has faults but Ego? No, that is not one of his problems.

goulik
11-01-2013, 06:40 PM
As I have stated elsewhere, you want to bring in "winners" that will help the young guys learn to win and be used to winning at the MLB level. That is where shorter supplementary contracts pay off.

Also to remember is Doumit and Willingham will give us an additional 10 million to spend at the end of next year. (If not sooner) I say go big for Garza plus a couple more FA's and spend 40 on 3-4 guys that will make our club more complete next year, build winning character in the youth, and have us ready for 2015 or even buyers at trade deadline next year when Hicks, Rosario, Meyers, Sano, and Buxton all pan out as high as we all dream they will and are mashing the ball in the majors. (Dreaming big I know...)

MichiganTwins
11-01-2013, 11:02 PM
I think the biggest part of your dream is Garza coming back.

MichiganTwins
11-01-2013, 11:05 PM
Also, I am convinced that the Twins are going to trade for some pitching help. The FA market does not seem to be the best fit. Most of the FA do not want to go to a team trying to rebuild.

Oxtung
11-02-2013, 01:19 AM
So, is it fair to say that you think every team should spend every dollar they have every year? In other words, Houston should go spend $70-80M this off season.

I don't follow Houston particularly closely and as such will not comment on what they should or should not be doing with their money.

Similarly I am not stating how the Twins should spend the money, just that they should be spending it. I understand that this is a business and a profit is a prerequisite but once a budget is made and accepted then the money earmarked to be spent should be. Cash is a finite resource and shouldn't be squandered. Is anyone clamoring for the Twins to forfeit their #5 draft pick next season because it won't send the Twins to the playoffs? Then why should the cash be sacrificed?

There are many ways to improve this team but forfeiting their money is not one of them.