Thread: Neal: Twins won't overpay for average pitching

Originally Posted by Highabove

My point was this, The Twins got a bargain with Willingham on one end, overpaying for a reliable Pitcher on the other end would not be a mortal sin.

ahh...misunderstood you. I thought you were implying big things to come

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

If I walk into a Ferrari dealership with $5,000 and ask for a new car, I'll be promptly turned on my heel and escorted out the door. At that point, could I frantically wave my arms and scream about how I can't give my money to Ferrari?

The Twins haven't been rumored to be in the mix for any decent pitcher this offseason. And it's not as if rumors aren't circulating. We've heard about them "being in the mix" on some pretty bad pitchers, just not any good ones.

Very bad analogy. Does absolutely nothing to refute my point that the Twins could have started discussions and were told no way. Not many offers or discussions are made public. Puhols turned down more money from Miami in a public discussion. Why have the major free agents all gone to winning teams the last six years? Absence of signing by the Twins is not proof of absence of discussions. Would you go to work for an outfit that offered you little chance of team success if you had an option? You already have more money than you will ever need regardless of where you sign. I think not.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

The idea that the Twins couldn't improve their team because free agents wouldn''t sign here is one possible theory.

It's a theory completely without evidence, contrary to history, and it defies rational thought, but it's one possible theory.

It is a theory based on where people sign. There is plenty of evidence out there by watching where past players have signed. What do you have that proves it wrong in recent history?

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

And since they pulled this same stunt when "attempting" to negotiate with Santana and Hunter, it's logical to believe this is actually what is happening with this years free agents to whom they "can't give away their money."

Torri Huntrer signed the second largest contract behind Alex Rodriguez. Had he signed the Twins offer he would have signed the second largest per year contract handed out. You had Morneau coming off a MVP season, Liriano pre Tommy John looked like he was going to be a dominant pitcher. . So in 2010 with no long term deals you have a choice between an MVP power hitter, potentially a staff ace, and an aging player. Hindsight is so easy.
Santana had publicly stated long before negotiations started that he wanted to play somewhere else. Had the Twins made a better trade you wouldn't be complaining. The Santana contract has them paying about8 million per WAR, way overpriced.

Originally Posted by jokin

Your $15-20M number is way off. They essentially offloaded Span's contract and replaced it with Correia and so the Twins have actually only added just $4M for Pelfrey. Minus all of the other numerous castoffs and non-reuturnees, the Twins have more like close to $30M that "they haven't spent" when compared to the 2012 payroll (Pavano, Baker, Span, Marquis, Casilla, Liriano, Capps salaries total to well over $30M that no longer exist on the payroll, replaced thus far by players making around the minimum or a crap-shoot lottery ticket like Harden).

If you consider equating the outright gutting of the team up the middle as a standard fleece-job, so be it.

If the Twins do nothing the remainder of the offseason, the 2013 payroll will be $80M. If you expected the payroll to be the same as last year, that means they have $20M left to spend.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Would you go to work for an outfit that offered you little chance of team success if you had an option? You already have more money than you will ever need regardless of where you sign. I think not.

The problem with this argument is that the pitcher they handed the most money to this offseason - by their own admission - took a lowball offer from the Twins.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Torri Huntrer signed the second largest contract behind Alex Rodriguez. Had he signed the Twins offer he would have signed the second largest per year contract handed out. You had Morneau coming off a MVP season, Liriano pre Tommy John looked like he was going to be a dominant pitcher. . So in 2010 with no long term deals you have a choice between an MVP power hitter, potentially a staff ace, and an aging player. Hindsight is so easy.
Santana had publicly stated long before negotiations started that he wanted to play somewhere else. Had the Twins made a better trade you wouldn't be complaining. The Santana contract has them paying about8 million per WAR, way overpriced.

I wasn't complaining. I was just pointing out that the Twins were trying to sell to the public that they also couldn't "give their money away" to Hunter and Santana even though the money (and mostly the years) they were offering were not as much as the other teams were willing to give. I was simply providing past experience to support Brock's Ferrari analogy which, like it or not, is a very likely theory.

Originally Posted by old nurse

It is a theory based on where people sign. There is plenty of evidence out there by watching where past players have signed. What do you have that proves it wrong in recent history?

On the one hand, you're using information made available about offers to Pujols and Hunter to prove FAs sign only with good teams. "Pujols turned down this, Hunter turned down that." Information made available...which is the only reason you know about it...these offers were rumored to have been made.

On the other hand, you're using a lack of information made available about Twins offers to FAs to prove we don't know they didn't make legitimate offers.

Sometimes--often times--the simplest explanation is the most logical:

The Twins haven't made any legitimate offers. That would explain why they haven't signed anyone. This explanation fits with their history, fits with their apparent goals, and explains why local or national baseball writers haven't linked the Twins to any legit pitchers.

Or, we could go with your theory: The Twins have made the best offer to numerous players/pitchers--all completely under the radar, unknown to any writer anywhere, all of which seem to know about other deals days in advance--but the conspiratorial SOBs just won't take their money.

Originally Posted by SweetOne69

If the Twins do nothing the remainder of the offseason, the 2013 payroll will be $80M. If you expected the payroll to be the same as last year, that means they have $20M left to spend.

Cot's has the Twins 2013 fixed payroll commitments at $64.3M for 9 players (w/o Blackburn counted - he's a non-roster player- who contributed zip in 2012 and is likely to do even less in 2013). Most of these above-minimum players received raises for 2013. Given the players I mentioned. plus Nishi's salary, all being gone, that is around $35M removed from last year's payroll number. The 16 players likely to fill out the 25 man roster will be making the minimum or a little more, which works out to less than $7M- so $71.3M is the operating number of actual rosterees to this point. No matter what payroll number was to be "expected" for 2013, the club in its haste to cut high dollar roster place holders, has taken a significant self-inflicted hit up the middle, with very little to show, in terms of competent replacements for 2013-4, for all of their machinations.

Why anyone would elect to live in Detroit for half the year over Chicago, or any other town in America for that matter, is proof enough for me that it is all about the money for most people. And, the Tigers have landed at least one top flight free agent for 4 straight offseasons (Damon, Valverde, VMart, Benoit, Fielder, Hunter, Sanchez).

The Twins obviously have some money to spend. If the starting pitching market is too expensive for them, it would be nice to pick up a middle infielder or something else with the rest of that dough.

Unless the ultimate goal is to slash payroll.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Very bad analogy. Does absolutely nothing to refute my point that the Twins could have started discussions and were told no way. Not many offers or discussions are made public. Puhols turned down more money from Miami in a public discussion. Why have the major free agents all gone to winning teams the last six years? Absence of signing by the Twins is not proof of absence of discussions. Would you go to work for an outfit that offered you little chance of team success if you had an option? You already have more money than you will ever need regardless of where you sign. I think not.

Your entire assumption of winning teams is flawed. High profile players go to the teams who are willing to commit big money. Pujols probably passed on Miami because they're a horribly run franchise that is known to liquidate their players every 3-5 years. He was right because they just did it again.

The Cubs don't have difficulty signing free agents and they're almost always awful. The Dodgers haven't had trouble signing people in the past few years and they've been mediocre. The Mets never seem to have trouble signing people when they want to spend money. Detroit never seems to have a problem and they've been up-and-down so much in the past decade it's like a rollercoaster. High profile signings are linked more closely with big market teams (that also happen to win because they have money to spend on good players) than it does with winning franchises. Another example is the Nationals. They were pretty awful before they started throwing money around and amazingly, started attracting good free agents.

The rumor mill is abuzz with teams being linked to many different free agents. We hear of it all the time. Yet, oddly enough, the Twins are never in the final 2-3 teams discussed with these free agents. Why is that? Because the Twins are better at keeping agents' mouths shut about offers? That argument doesn't hold water. Agents are in the business of drumming up excitement about their players. Why would they suddenly keep quiet just because the Twins are involved?

Originally Posted by USAFChief

On the one hand, you're using information made available about offers to Pujols and Hunter to prove FAs sign only with good teams. "Pujols turned down this, Hunter turned down that." Information made available...which is the only reason you know about it...these offers were rumored to have been made.

On the other hand, you're using a lack of information made available about Twins offers to FAs to prove we don't know they didn't make legitimate offers.

Sometimes--often times--the simplest explanation is the most logical:

The Twins haven't made any legitimate offers. That would explain why they haven't signed anyone. This explanation fits with their history, fits with their apparent goals, and explains why local or national baseball writers haven't linked the Twins to any legit pitchers.

Or, we could go with your theory: The Twins have made the best offer to numerous players/pitchers--all completely under the radar, unknown to any writer anywhere, all of which seem to know about other deals days in advance--but the conspiratorial SOBs just won't take their money.

I wouldn't say definitely that the Twins haven't made any legitimate offers. We just don't know... On the other hand, it is unlikely that they haven't made any legitimate offers. Otherwise, we would have heard something, just like we do for almost every other team in the mix.

Other than that minor quibble, I entirely agree.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Very bad analogy. Does absolutely nothing to refute my point that the Twins could have started discussions and were told no way. Not many offers or discussions are made public. Puhols turned down more money from Miami in a public discussion. Why have the major free agents all gone to winning teams the last six years? Absence of signing by the Twins is not proof of absence of discussions. Would you go to work for an outfit that offered you little chance of team success if you had an option? You already have more money than you will ever need regardless of where you sign. I think not.

You are defending the Twins inability to sign free agents "because they can't?" It sounds like a small child is making this argument. This is major league sports, the athletes go where the money is. If you can't accept that fact, I don't know what else to say.

You are suggesting the Twins are somehow not responsible for the makeup of their own roster because they aren't any good. They are responsible, in every aspect, of the product they put on the field. Being lousy is no excuse for being cheap in free agency. They do not deserve any sort of free pass or excuse for not getting players to sign here. It is not because they are lousy, it's because they don't want to spend what it takes to sign these players.

Just thinking out loud here, how on Earth have we not been linked to Derek Lowe? He seems right up our wheelhouse, especially this year.

The ex-players on MLB TV have talked about this many times and always say that players will NEARLY always take the most money. It's very rare that a player will leave money on the table.
If you offer them the money they will sign.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

Why anyone would elect to live in Detroit for half the year over Chicago, or any other town in America for that matter, is proof enough for me that it is all about the money for most people. And, the Tigers have landed at least one top flight free agent for 4 straight offseasons (Damon, Valverde, VMart, Benoit, Fielder, Hunter, Sanchez).

Detroit has fielded a far better team than Chicago in far less of a zoo for an an environment. Suburban life in Detroit cannot be much different than suburban life anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin

You are defending the Twins inability to sign free agents "because they can't?" It sounds like a small child is making this argument. This is major league sports, the athletes go where the money is. If you can't accept that fact, I don't know what else to say.

You are suggesting the Twins are somehow not responsible for the makeup of their own roster because they aren't any good. They are responsible, in every aspect, of the product they put on the field. Being lousy is no excuse for being cheap in free agency. They do not deserve any sort of free pass or excuse for not getting players to sign here. It is not because they are lousy, it's because they don't want to spend what it takes to sign these players.

No need for personal insults,

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Your entire assumption of winning teams is flawed. High profile players go to the teams who are willing to commit big money. Pujols probably passed on Miami because they're a horribly run franchise that is known to liquidate their players every 3-5 years. He was right because they just did it again.

The Cubs don't have difficulty signing free agents and they're almost always awful. The Dodgers haven't had trouble signing people in the past few years and they've been mediocre. The Mets never seem to have trouble signing people when they want to spend money. Detroit never seems to have a problem and they've been up-and-down so much in the past decade it's like a rollercoaster. High profile signings are linked more closely with big market teams (that also happen to win because they have money to spend on good players) than it does with winning franchises. Another example is the Nationals. They were pretty awful before they started throwing money around and amazingly, started attracting good free agents.

The rumor mill is abuzz with teams being linked to many different free agents. We hear of it all the time. Yet, oddly enough, the Twins are never in the final 2-3 teams discussed with these free agents. Why is that? Because the Twins are better at keeping agents' mouths shut about offers? That argument doesn't hold water. Agents are in the business of drumming up excitement about their players. Why would they suddenly keep quiet just because the Twins are involved?

The original fire sale was not by the Loria group. There was no sell off after the second championship and the team was competitive for a few years. They made a trade of Lee for someone who didn't have a long career.
Most of the times you hear of other team's competitive bids is when it is used to jack a price up when somewhere else when negotiations are stalling.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

If I walk into a Ferrari dealership with $5,000 and ask for a new car, I'll be promptly turned on my heel and escorted out the door. At that point, could I frantically wave my arms and scream about how I can't give my money to Ferrari?

Honestly, I think if you walked into a Ferrari dealership with $5000 in hand, even if you were dressed in cut-up blue jeans and a raggy T-shirt, they'd listen to you very carefully. They might not sell you something on the spot, they'd probably want to check the rest of your finances, but they'd listen to you. Right up until the time someone else walked in dressed in a suit with $6000 in hand. That's of course assuming they only have one car available to sell, too.

I don't care to add much to this debate, honestly, it's done to death at this point. But I couldn't overlook the one post in this debate that at least made me smile.