Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Forums

Front Page: Twins Game Recap (9/21): Twins Blow Lead, Imp...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 11:09 PM
With Cleveland losing to the Philadelphia Phillies, the Minnesota Twins looked to do their part in lowering the Magic Number in game thre...
Full topic ›

Game Thread "Wolfgang" Twins vs. Royals 6:10 CDT...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 10:30 PM
Today is a special day. Not only do our Twins host the Royals on their push for a post season berth, but today is the first day of Oktobe...
Full topic ›

Magic Number Thread

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 09:52 PM
Why no magic number thread?     Why can't I post pictures?      BYTO was fun.    
Full topic ›

Front Page: Twins Game Recap (9/20): Randy Dobnak Continu...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 08:31 PM
The Twins used a group of rookie pitchers including Randy Dobnak and Cody Stashak to beat the Royals by a score of 4-3. Everything was wo...
Full topic ›

Front Page: Should Eddie Rosario Be Benched for Not Hustl...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 08:24 PM
Eddie Rosario is one of five Twins hitters to hit 30 home runs or more this season to help the team set a new standard at the big-league...
Full topic ›

Show Me the Money (and the Wins)

How often does spending big in free agency actually result in winning more games the next year? Thank you for asking this question, voice in my head, because I was wondering the same thing. What I want to look at are the teams that spent the most money in the offseason and then how they did the year following with their new toys.
Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports
Given that we’re Twins fans here, payroll has never been a topic of discussion. No one has ever been annoyed at the lack of big spending in free agency and is always perfectly OK with how the front office allocates their resources, especially this year. Free agency is supposed to be an opportunity to right the sinking ship through veteran additions to a low-talent roster (Texas), to fortify a good roster to take their team over the top (Boston), or to sit around and talk about how good the farm system is (San Diego).

Every year, we see the offseason as a chance for teams to flex on small market franchises by throwing money at players like drunken pirates. Nowadays it isn’t as prevalent, but teams are still paying players for their services for the next year or beyond. But is that a recipe for success?

The process is quite simple: Find the top 10 spending teams in an offseason over the last five years and then see where they ended up the following year. I’ll rank them by total money spent so that the Padres’ brilliant Eric Hosmer contract screws them over a lot because they deserve to be ridiculed. Information will be used from Spotrac, let’s see what it says!

2018 offseason shopping sprees

Attached Image: Spending1.png

A few things are already looking interesting here! The Cubs slide into the top spot because they handed out contracts to pitchers like Yu Darvish and Tyler Chatwood who both probably are sleeping in their beds of money, grateful for their agents, while the Ricketts continue to try to print money in order to scrape together a hitting coach that they won’t throw under the bus.

Other than that, a great number of the top teams are up there because of financial promises to a single player. Some were great (J.D. Martinez with Boston), some were very good (Lorenzo Cain with Milwaukee), and some were terrible the second they were signed (everyone with the Rockies). Altogether, the top 10 in spending netted +6 wins overall or +34 if you want to ignore Baltimore, which is a good plan for just about everything.

Only 3 teams went negative in wins the year after spending like a redneck at a gas station with one of them being, of course, the Twins... great luck there. Let’s go back one more year now.

2017 offseason shopping spree

Attached Image: Spending2.png

Ah, 2017, a simpler time, a time where Dexter Fowler received the third-most expensive contract of the offseason and Ian Desmond got the fifth. I have to say, I like seeing the spread of typically smaller spending teams here like Miami, Cleveland, and Colorado. It really just warms my cold, frozen heart.

Overall the top ten spending teams netted a whole -1 more wins than the year prior but that number becomes +22 if you throw out the massive outlier in the Giants. The Dodgers were by far the biggest spenders but most of it was them keeping players they already had like Kenley Jansen, Justin Turner, and Rich Hill, leaving Sergio Romo and his $3 million payday as their highest paid free agent who came from another team.

All in all, this list translates fairly well to success when considering the context of which players were brought in for which team. Houston added a few veterans who turned them into a World Series champion, Cleveland added Edwin Encarnacion to legitimize their lineup and lead them straight into and out of the playoffs after the first round, and the Yankees added back Aroldis Chapman after swindling the Cubs into trading yet another top prospect for pitching. Although, someone should have told St. Louis not to invest over $110 million into Brett Cecil and Dexter Fowler, yikes.

2016 shopping spree

Attached Image: Spending3.png

The first obvious thing to note, what the hell was going on in this offseason? Are you guys seeing the amount of money that teams were spending here? We talk about the horrible offseason in 2018, but it looks like free agency actually started going downhill a year before that. Maybe it was a fluke year, but teams were dropping money like upper-class toddlers at Toys R' Us on their birthday. All for elite names like Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Ian Kennedy, and Jordan Zimmermann. Freakin' Jeff Samardzija got $90 million this offseason. What was going on back then?

Luckily, there isn’t some massive outlier team, so adding up the wins gained/lost results in a cool +9 overall. I do love how the Twins biggest signing that offseason was David Murphy, who decided that he would rather not play baseball the rest of his life than play for the Twins. And this was after an 83 win season! The next biggest acquisition was Carlos Quentin who you definitely forgot was technically a Twin, leaving the only impactful addition being Fernando Abad who was signed to a minor league deal, great stuff Terry Ryan, it’s a wonder that it took him that long to be canned.

Despite that Heyward contract looking like the albatross to end all albatrosses, the Cubs dropping nearly the GDP of the Republic of Palau that offseason brought them to the promised land thanks to other veteran signings like Ben Zobrist, Dexter Fowler, and John Lackey.

2015 shopping spree

Attached Image: Spending4.png

We finally reach the infamous 2015 offseason where Max Scherzer and Jon Lester got paid handsomely and actually provided good value for their team while Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez also got paid well and did whatever the opposite of providing value would be. Overall, the top spending teams netted +38 wins overall which still stays a +14 even if you throw out the outlier Cubs.

There isn’t too much to really report here, spending was about what it typically is. The Royals added some garnish to their eventually World Series-winning club with the signings of Edinson Volquez and Twins legend Kendrys Morales. Hell, they even gave Alex Rios $11 million that offseason to kind of just hang around and do Alex Rios things. This was also the year where the Twins handed out their biggest contract ever to Ervin Santana which went pretty well and they also decided to bring back Torii Hunter for old times sake, which went less well, but who cares? Torii was back!

2014 shopping spree

Attached Image: Spending5.png

What a strange offseason this was, the Mariners absolutely shocked the world when they gave a 31-year-old Robinson Cano a 10 year, $240 million contract and then later shocked no one by not keeping him through the whole deal. The Rangers gave Shin-Soo Choo $130 million and then lost 24 more games than the year prior. The Yankees decided to back the dump truck of money up for veterans like Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann, and Carlos Beltran and I’m sure that they would still do that Ellsbury contract again if they could.

The Twins slot in as the fourth-highest spending team mostly thanks to the elite three-headed Nolasco-Hughes-Pelfrey starting trio. They also tried to bring back Kubel, Bartlett, and Guerrier, all of whom failed miserably and proved that you do in fact become the villain if you live long enough. Kurt Suzuki was a nice cheap find here who made the All-Star Game despite being signed for less than $3 million in the offseason and is still kicking after getting a nice deal from the Nationals this offseason.

Overall the top 10 spending teams netted +16 more wins than the year prior and there is something kind of hilarious about the second highest spending team going +26 while the third highest went -24. Interestingly enough, the Giants won the World Series that year despite their biggest signing that offseason being a Tim Hudson who was collecting social security at that point and needed a walker to get to the mound.

All right, that’s a lot of information, but what narratives can we draw from this? Overall, through five years of data covering 50 individual team seasons, the top 10 spending teams netted 68 more wins or an average of 1.36 more games won than the year before. Throwing out any season that ended in a +20 or -20 to control for outliers brings the number to 93 more wins total, or an average of 2.07 more games won than the prior year.

So, there is a very slight positive correlation between spending money and winning more games than the year before. Let’s get even more specific here: The top spending team over each offseason overall won eight more games than the year before, or an average of 1.6 more games won. Teams that were top three in spending in a given year won 41 more games than the year before overall, or an average of 2.73 more games. Teams that spent more than $200 million in an offseason overall netted 45 more wins the next year, or 4.5 more games on average.

For me, this data is certainly interesting, but nothing really groundbreaking or astonishing. Spending more does indeed have a general slight positive correlation with winning the next year, but the numbers weren’t exactly eye-popping to me. Just an average of one to two more games won than the year prior. That total is certainly an improvement, but not such an incredible one that spending becomes such an obscene advantage over other teams that it isn’t even fair.

I also find it hilarious that the top spending team on average barely won more games than the year before... so much for a competitive advantage. I suppose if I had any other major conclusions, it would be that spending more than $200 million in an offseason without being the highest spending team would be the best plan of attack for teams who are inclined to do such things.

As it pertains to the Twins, spending more would improve the team, but context is more important when considering how much a team spends. Yes, in general spending more will win a team more games, but it has been and will always be about how that money is spent more than how much of that money is spent. Spending will never save a bad team from the depths of irrelevance, but it can certainly lift a team up into the glories of the Postseason.

  • mikelink45, Sconnie, Dman and 3 others like this

  • Share:
  • submit to reddit
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

60 Comments

How did not signing FA RPs work out, using guys that produced negative WAR instead? I mean, if the argument that signing them doesn't work, how has not signing them worked out? Maybe the answer is to just be smarter and better (really, the only way a mid market team can win, since they don't have unlimited resources).

 

As for Darvish, supposedly they bid the second most, so the FO must have wanted him. 

 

Since you like to exaggerate others' posts to make a point....are you suggesting never to sign a FA? Even though we see from successful teams that they have WAR from FAs of some kind (or trades)? No team is built solely from within, at least not winning teams.

Photo
Battle ur tail off
Feb 06 2019 02:30 PM

 

That's quite vague. How much is a little and what is your suggestion for smarter? 

 

What free agents this year would be smarter? The concensus here seems to be we need to get the really high profile guys. 

 

This is why you employ a scouting department. You have stats guys, baseball guys, guys that need to know how these FA's tick, their work ethic, etc. 

 

These guys are PAID to do this stuff. Do some research and scout them. That is how you do things smarter. Figure out, is signing a one year wonder like Logan Morrison worth it? Or could we fill in with someone in our system and get similar production?

 

How about a 1 year contract to a pitcher that hasn't been any good - ever? Is he going to be better than what we have in house? Or is this just wasted money to look like we are out thinking everybody?

 

 

 

    • Mike Sixel and Doomtints like this

 

That's quite vague. How much is a little and what is your suggestion for smarter? 

 

What free agents this year would be smarter? The concensus here seems to be we need to get the really high profile guys. Who should they have got last year. Would they have been smarter if they got Darvish? Would Arietta at $25M for 2 WAR been significant? How about the 3rd highest paid SP (Cobb). Is that the kind of smart move that would have moved the needle. How about the top RP. Would they have been smarter had the signed Davis at $17M/yr to produce .9 WAR. How about the next highest paid RP ( Holland). Would his .3 WAR have made a difference? I know there were some Brandon Morrow supporters here. He was the next highest paid. Was his .6 WAR the solution.

 

How about the highest paid position player.....

 

I feel like I said, twice, that the Twins don't need to try to spend the most money. Your examples are flawed in two ways:

 

1) This isn't at all what I said,

2) You're assuming someone like Arrieta or many of those other guys would not have been an improvement for what the Twins had last year (apart from Darvish, they would have). You also might want to look at Arrieta's deal, it's basically a football contract in that very little is guaranteed. He could be a free agent again at the end of this year.

 

Who could they pick up now? If the Twins are throwing 1-year deals around, Clay Buchholz. He will be better than Martin Perez and the money might not be much different. Now your turn, who would you pick up?

    • Mike Sixel likes this
Photo
howieramone2
Feb 06 2019 06:34 PM

 

This is why you employ a scouting department. You have stats guys, baseball guys, guys that need to know how these FA's tick, their work ethic, etc. 

 

These guys are PAID to do this stuff. Do some research and scout them. That is how you do things smarter. Figure out, is signing a one year wonder like Logan Morrison worth it? Or could we fill in with someone in our system and get similar production?

 

How about a 1 year contract to a pitcher that hasn't been any good - ever? Is he going to be better than what we have in house? Or is this just wasted money to look like we are out thinking everybody?

In the last 3 years, Darvish has won 18 games. Perez has won 25. Who made the better deal? Also, he's projected to win one more game than Darvish this season.

 

In the last 3 years, Darvish has won 18 games. Perez has won 25. Who made the better deal? Also, he's projected to win one more game than Darvish this season.

 

Wins? Really? Wins are a team stat. I mean, would you rather add a player that gave up 5 runs a game, but played with the best offense, or a player that gave up 2 runs a game and played with the Mets.....

 

Darvish got hurt. If Perez now gets hurt, will it be a bad signing because he doesn't get wins? 

Photo
howieramone2
Feb 06 2019 07:06 PM

 

Wins? Really? Wins are a team stat. I mean, would you rather add a player that gave up 5 runs a game, but played with the best offense, or a player that gave up 2 runs a game and played with the Mets.....

 

Darvish got hurt. If Perez now gets hurt, will it be a bad signing because he doesn't get wins? 

Wins and losses are great stats. I still remember how many games I won in college. No idea how many of those WAR things I accumulated. Look, Darvish is no more hurt than Hughes was. The board badmouthed Hughes, I badmouth Darvish. Yes, if Perez gets hurt, he'll continue to be a board scapegoat.

 

I didn't take a dang thing from the data in this article. But I got this one thing from it: I want to read more stuff written by Matt Braun. You're an excellent writer.

Thank you very much, I'm awfully flattered.

    • USAFChief and snepp like this
Photo
Major League Ready
Feb 07 2019 10:19 AM

 

I feel like I said, twice, that the Twins don't need to try to spend the most money. Your examples are flawed in two ways:

 

1) This isn't at all what I said,

2) You're assuming someone like Arrieta or many of those other guys would not have been an improvement for what the Twins had last year (apart from Darvish, they would have). You also might want to look at Arrieta's deal, it's basically a football contract in that very little is guaranteed. He could be a free agent again at the end of this year.

 

Who could they pick up now? If the Twins are throwing 1-year deals around, Clay Buchholz. He will be better than Martin Perez and the money might not be much different. Now your turn, who would you pick up?

 

Just about any team could improve slightly if the standard is replacing the worst player on the team with a high price FA in hindsight. However, the context of your text which prompted by reply was that the Twins could make a significant difference if they were willing to spend a little more and were a little smarter. The examples I provided were the most highly regarded FAs on the market and the same players that many here said were no brainers.I also asked you to define a little and the magnitude of the impact. The facts (history) is quite clear that FA productivity is around 9M/WAR. A little spending is highly unlikely to move the needle anywhere near what the Twins need to succeed.

 

The real disconnect is that fans have absolutely no problem with players treating baseball as a business but many refuse to accept the business that is the Minnesota Twins acting like a business. The fact is that if the Twins spent another $25M on free agents, the odds of them recouping that investment are near zero. The odds of recouping even 25% are less than even. Try going into your CEO’s office and suggesting they make a $25M investment with little chance of recouping even a modest portion of the investment.

    • howieramone2 likes this

 

Just about any team could improve slightly if the standard is replacing the worst player on the team with a high price FA in hindsight. However, the context of your text which prompted by reply was that the Twins could make a significant difference if they were willing to spend a little more and were a little smarter. The examples I provided were the most highly regarded FAs on the market and the same players that many here said were no brainers.I also asked you to define a little and the magnitude of the impact. The facts (history) is quite clear that FA productivity is around 9M/WAR. A little spending is highly unlikely to move the needle anywhere near what the Twins need to succeed.

 

The real disconnect is that fans have absolutely no problem with players treating baseball as a business but many refuse to accept the business that is the Minnesota Twins acting like a business. The fact is that if the Twins spent another $25M on free agents, the odds of them recouping that investment are near zero. The odds of recouping even 25% are less than even. Try going into your CEO’s office and suggesting they make a $25M investment with little chance of recouping even a modest portion of the investment.

 

What's your argument, at the end? Don't spend any money, and make money on tv and radio and revenue sharing (the disconnect between attendance and profit has never been greater, according to several studies on line)? Is there some minimum they can spend, and still make money? Never invest in better players? Is there no obligation to spend, given that the taxpayers subsidize their business?

 

And, NO ONE is saying that the Twins shouldn't treat this like a business. No one. The delta in opinion is about how much money they make, vs how much they try to win. They aren't losing money. 

    • Doomtints likes this
Photo
Major League Ready
Feb 07 2019 10:43 AM

 

How did not signing FA RPs work out, using guys that produced negative WAR instead? I mean, if the argument that signing them doesn't work, how has not signing them worked out? Maybe the answer is to just be smarter and better (really, the only way a mid market team can win, since they don't have unlimited resources).

 

As for Darvish, supposedly they bid the second most, so the FO must have wanted him. 

 

Since you like to exaggerate others' posts to make a point....are you suggesting never to sign a FA? Even though we see from successful teams that they have WAR from FAs of some kind (or trades)? No team is built solely from within, at least not winning teams.

 

How am I exaggerating? I used hard fact. The very top paid FAs all failed from last year. Is this or is this not accurate.

 

You have tried to make the argument they should build through FA and trading for established players because they have failed at developing talent. In other words, the previous regime failed to successfullyimplement the practices most likely to succeed so let's take a crack at following a path that is patently proven not to work for teams with average or less revenue. The data is overwhelming in terms of the acquisition model that has produced playoff teams or even 90 win teams like the Rays that did not make the playoffs.

 

You have consistently ignore hard data and focus on anecdotes that might support your unwaveringposition the answer is spending just as the OP did here when he ignored the fact that the most successful teams in terms of wins increase spent virtually nothing on FAs. I have asked you on several occasions to show me examples of successful teams with average or below average revenue where FAs and/or established high performing players were acquired via trade. If you look at these teams, and I have provided hard fact previously, the majority of the WAR is produced by players acquired as prospects. The number of impact players acquired through trade while still prospects grossly outnumber the players acquired after becoming established.

 

The point being there is a lot of focus and insistence on spending focused practices which history clearly shows to be a bad bet. It's also very obvious that the teams have gained a firm of the relative merit of free building through free agency. Do you suppose it's the league that does not understand or are TDers holding on to some outdated principals?

Photo
Major League Ready
Feb 07 2019 10:45 AM

 

What's your argument, at the end? Don't spend any money, and make money on tv and radio and revenue sharing (the disconnect between attendance and profit has never been greater, according to several studies on line)? Is there some minimum they can spend, and still make money? Never invest in better players? Is there no obligation to spend, given that the taxpayers subsidize their business?

 

And, NO ONE is saying that the Twins shouldn't treat this like a business. No one. The delta in opinion is about how much money they make, vs how much they try to win. They aren't losing money. 

 

I can't tell you how much I would enjoy meeting you in a board room.

 

I can't tell you how much I would enjoy meeting you in a board room.

 

this is a fan board, not a place of work......I think you miss that distinction here.

    • SQUIRREL and nicksaviking like this

 

How am I exaggerating? I used hard fact. The very top paid FAs all failed from last year. Is this or is this not accurate.

 

You have tried to make the argument they should build through FA and trading for established players because they have failed at developing talent. In other words, the previous regime failed to successfullyimplement the practices most likely to succeed so let's take a crack at following a path that is patently proven not to work for teams with average or less revenue. The data is overwhelming in terms of the acquisition model that has produced playoff teams or even 90 win teams like the Rays that did not make the playoffs.

 

You have consistently ignore hard data and focus on anecdotes that might support your unwaveringposition the answer is spending just as the OP did here when he ignored the fact that the most successful teams in terms of wins increase spent virtually nothing on FAs. I have asked you on several occasions to show me examples of successful teams with average or below average revenue where FAs and/or established high performing players were acquired via trade. If you look at these teams, and I have provided hard fact previously, the majority of the WAR is produced by players acquired as prospects. The number of impact players acquired through trade while still prospects grossly outnumber the players acquired after becoming established.

 

The point being there is a lot of focus and insistence on spending focused practices which history clearly shows to be a bad bet. It's also very obvious that the teams have gained a firm of the relative merit of free building through free agency. Do you suppose it's the league that does not understand or are TDers holding on to some outdated principals?

 

I've never said build thru FA or trades. I've asked them to add one player they think is great, and one player just below that. Two players. Not a build.

I can't tell you how much I would enjoy meeting you in a board room.

Moderator's note: This is getting awfully personal again. Mike's reply happened to be gracious. I would hope that's the norm by now, but please don't push it.

    • nicksaviking likes this
I think having money allows you to absorb bad contracts. Teams with less money to spend may not end up crippled with a bad contract but They will at least limp as a result. Big money teams just carry on.

In my opinion... it is possible that when you just look at the production... everybody is playing by the same arb rules so it evens out a little.
    • Mike Sixel likes this

 

I think having money allows you to absorb bad contracts. Teams with less money to spend may not end up crippled with a bad contract but They will at least limp as a result. Big money teams just carry on.

In my opinion... it is possible that when you just look at the production... everybody is playing by the same arb rules so it evens out a little.

 

Like the Yankees with Ellsbury (I was totally wrong about that one! but it also shows that even position players are risky).

    • Riverbrian likes this
Photo
Major League Ready
Feb 07 2019 01:26 PM

 

I've never said build thru FA or trades. I've asked them to add one player they think is great, and one player just below that. Two players. Not a build.

 

Two things. The construction of Atlanta, Colorado, Tampa, Oakland in terms of impact players (3WAR or higher) is absolutely dominated by players that were drafted or acquired in trade before becoming established. Obviously, supplementing though any other means is advisable but the impact of trades for established players or FAs has been very modest. The point is the constant complaining about a practice with modest impact is not exactly enlightened. Things that really matter get a fraction of the attention.

 

The other thing is timing. You and others always insist it must be done NOW. Most fans refuse to see this through the lens of a business. There are 4 potential future states.

1) The FA pans out and the rest of the team produces at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player.
2) The FA pans out but the rest of the team does not produce at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player.
3) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team produces at a high level.
4) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team also fails.

 

The reason teams wait until they have significant confidence is that the odds of #1 are probably 2:1 against for just the first part of the scenario that the player performs at a high level. Their willingness to take those odds is going to be very low if the odds of the 2nd part of that scenario are not high. If the odds of part 1 are .333 and the odds of part 2 are .333, the overall odds of success are 11%. .333 is probably optimistic in terms of the rest of this team. Business don’t spend 10s of millions on those odds. It’s bad from both a business perspective and roster building perspective. The typical response here is so what it’s just money but that does not account for the inability to invest if the remainder of the team improves. In other words, FAs are always a bad bet but a bet that makes much more sense when the team has proven to be ready to contend.

I agree that it is more risky to sign free agents early in the process. After 2017, it looked like Buxton was legit. That was when I wanted Realmuto. Buxton got hurt, showing that even young position players carry risk. Had Buxton and Sano been healthy, and Dozier produced, having a legit pitcher and Realmuto may have been enough. Not likely, but we won't know.

If those two are healthy and great this year, they will have almost no pitching under contract in 20. While it looks like there will be plenty available, someone will get hurt. Someone will get extended. Everyone will be a risk. I hope they take that risk if the core plays to it's potential

Two things. The construction of Atlanta, Colorado, Tampa, Oakland in terms of impact players (3WAR or higher) is absolutely dominated by players that were drafted or acquired in trade before becoming established. Obviously, supplementing though any other means is advisable but the impact of trades for established players or FAs has been very modest. The point is the constant complaining about a practice with modest impact is not exactly enlightened. Things that really matter get a fraction of the attention.

The other thing is timing. You and others always insist it must be done NOW. Most fans refuse to see this through the lens of a business. There are 4 potential future states.
1) The FA pans out and the rest of the team produces at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player.
2) The FA pans out but the rest of the team does not produce at a level where the addition of the FA results in enough success to recoup the investment in that player.
3) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team produces at a high level.
4) The FA does not produce and the rest of the team also fails.

The reason teams wait until they have significant confidence is that the odds of #1 are probably 2:1 against for just the first part of the scenario that the player performs at a high level. Their willingness to take those odds is going to be very low if the odds of the 2nd part of that scenario are not high. If the odds of part 1 are .333 and the odds of part 2 are .333, the overall odds of success are 11%. .333 is probably optimistic in terms of the rest of this team. Business don’t spend 10s of millions on those odds. It’s bad from both a business perspective and roster building perspective. The typical response here is so what it’s just money but that does not account for the inability to invest if the remainder of the team improves. In other words, FAs are always a bad bet but a bet that makes much more sense when the team has proven to be ready to contend.

But it is just money. Savings aren't carried over. The team isn't in financial trouble.

You talk about the team like it's a normal business which it isn't. It's closer to a non-profit. If you've ever served on a church or charity board you'd understand that the mission guides what you are doing. If you can't fiscally follow your mission, then your organization has no purpose and you dissolve. The Twins have ever stated that their mission is sustainable success, not necessarily championships. But it seems that their real mission is to make money. If that's the case, they aren't good for the sport and they should pick a new business.

But it is just money. Savings aren't carried over. The team isn't in financial trouble.

You talk about the team like it's a normal business which it isn't. It's closer to a non-profit. If you've ever served on a church or charity board you'd understand that the mission guides what you are doing. If you can't fiscally follow your mission, then your organization has no purpose and you dissolve. The Twins have ever stated that their mission is sustainable success, not necessarily championships. But it seems that their real mission is to make money. If that's the case, they aren't good for the sport and they should pick a new business.

I don't agree. I think they can make money and be good. It's a matter of how much money..... That's my issue. When they are competitive, or close, will they spend? Last year they spent a lot. But they were all short term investments, which were lauded for their efficiency. I want wins when they look good. They looked legit, sort of, after 17. They went half in. Turns out, somewhat due to injuries, they were right.

Until they act differently, they are the Twins. A team that has only spent big in free agency twice. Coincidentally, those are the championship years....

I don't agree. I think they can make money and be good. It's a matter of how much money..... That's my issue. When they are competitive, or close, will they spend? Last year they spent a lot. But they were all short term investments, which were lauded for their efficiency. I want wins when they look good. They looked legit, sort of, after 17. They went half in. Turns out, somewhat due to injuries, they were right.

Until they act differently, they are the Twins. A team that has only spent big in free agency twice. Coincidentally, those are the championship years....


I agree as well. They're in one of the world's great investments. incredibly profitable. Exclusive, almost monopoly exclusive. Popular, fun, and generating both income and growth.

I don't agree. I think they can make money and be good. It's a matter of how much money..... That's my issue. When they are competitive, or close, will they spend? Last year they spent a lot. But they were all short term investments, which were lauded for their efficiency. I want wins when they look good. They looked legit, sort of, after 17. They went half in. Turns out, somewhat due to injuries, they were right.

Until they act differently, they are the Twins. A team that has only spent big in free agency twice. Coincidentally, those are the championship years....

I agree as well. They're in one of the world's great investments. incredibly profitable. Exclusive, almost monopoly exclusive. Popular, fun, and generating both income and growth.

That said, what is their primary objective?

 

I agree as well. They're in one of the world's great investments. incredibly profitable. Exclusive, almost monopoly exclusive. Popular, fun, and generating both income and growth.

 

Heck, Congress keeps passing LAWS that allow them to operate in ways no other businesses can, including possibly allowing minor league players to be barely paid........And taxpayers keep handing them money for stadiums and parking and and and. 

    • Jham likes this

I don't agree. I think they can make money and be good. It's a matter of how much money..... That's my issue. When they are competitive, or close, will they spend? Last year they spent a lot. But they were all short term investments, which were lauded for their efficiency. I want wins when they look good. They looked legit, sort of, after 17. They went half in. Turns out, somewhat due to injuries, they were right.
Until they act differently, they are the Twins. A team that has only spent big in free agency twice. Coincidentally, those are the championship years....



The Twins sure didn't spend big in 1987. Berenguer was the biggest free agent signing. Joe Niekro won like 5 games. Everyone else was acquired thru trade or minor league signing. Morris was a FA signing in 91. Chili Davis was a FA too. He played 113 games for the Angels the year before with 265 ave and 12 hr. Morris got good money but was coming off a pretty poor year.
    • Riverbrian likes this

 

The Twins sure didn't spend big in 1987. Berenguer was the biggest free agent signing. Joe Niekro won like 5 games. Everyone else was acquired thru trade or minor league signing. Morris was a FA signing in 91. Chili Davis was a FA too. He played 113 games for the Angels the year before with 265 ave and 12 hr. Morris got good money but was coming off a pretty poor year.

 

Huh, I thought there was one FA in 87, but I could be off on that. You recall the trades?

 

And, I'm aware Morris and Davis came off bad years, but they did sign them, and it did work. 


Similar Articles


by Jeremy Nygaard , 18 Jul 2019
Photo


by Jeremy Nygaard , 30 Jan 2019
Photo


by Ted Schwerzler , 17 Jan 2019
Photo


by Seth Stohs , 01 Jan 2019
Photo


by Seth Stohs , 31 Dec 2018
Photo