Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Article: TwinsDaily Video: How Much Pitching Can The Twins Afford?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    395
    Like
    0
    Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Nelson View Post
    That's true to an extent, but the more expensive guys are more expensive for a reason. They are more highly sought. Players get paid based on production, and right now the Twins could stand to add some guys that have proven they can produce.
    Actually, I tend to agree with this statement. There are however, 2 problems associated with this. The first is that, there are only a few guys who have the kind of production that really justifies interest, and that really drives up the price. The 2nd is that the next tier really gets expensive as well and sometimes the production doesn't really match with the price.

    Clearly, the Twins will likely end up spending in this area this coming off-season and while I won't complain if they do, it is very likely the Twins will end up with someone whose production will probably be no better than Correia was this year. A good potential example of this is Hughes from the Yankees. Even though he was really no better and perhaps worse than Correia was this year, he is going to command much more than Correia did. Hughes has a big fastball, some good stuff, is relatively young and has a bit of a track record of success. Still, except for one year, his record as a starter is that of a back of the rotation guy.


    I really don't know don't know what he will get, perhaps 3 years at $12 mil per year, but it could be more than that. I would be surprised if it is less. The problem is while he has flashed the stuff of a top of rotation guy, the most likely outcome is Correia like production. Because, that is actually what he has done through most of his career. Again, I won't be upset if the Twins get him or someone like him, but expecting something really good out of someone who has seldom produced at that level, is setting yourself up for disappointment.
    Last edited by Jim H; 10-19-2013 at 01:04 PM.

  2. #22
    How much pitching can the Twins afford? Short answer is, much more than they're willing to pay for.

  3. #23
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,148
    Like
    62
    Liked 74 Times in 50 Posts
    Not bothering to buy pitching--repeat 2011,2012, and 2013--rinse, lather, and repeat. The stated figure: "up to ...", seems like there is basis for it. But as far as I'm concerned I fully expect a repeat of last off-season's "free-agent dance", with a resultant similarly sized payroll reduction. A few more wins result because there won't be another September implosion. "Progress" will be claimed, and statements like "we're turning the corner" due to another 4 to 6 wins.

  4. #24
    2013 attendance was down by roughly 300,000. I don’t know the average cost of a ticket or the net effect on parking and concessions but I would guess we are talking a net decrease of roughly $12M. You would think sales of Twins merchandise also takes a hit when the team sucks so I am going to guess revenue dropped to $200-202M. I have never been sure if this number is before or after payroll taxes. I am assuming before.

    That gives us 225-227 in revenue. 227 * 52% = 118 – 59 = $59M
    The catch is, as I understand it, they base the payroll on previous year’s revenue. Therefore, the new TV revenue might not be considered in the budget until next year. Actually, it might be very wise to leave some room for spending in 2015 given we are hopeful several questions will be answered in 2014. Willingham’s contract will be off the books in 2015 but some players are going to get raises that might take-up most of that $7M. It would be nice to have $20M or so to spend in 2015 when it has become more clear which of our young players are for real.

    I expect they will spend in the neighborhood of $35-40M.

    Anyone care to guess what the following FAs will bring in terms of years/dollars.

    Ervin Santana
    Tim Lincecum
    Ubaldo Jimenez
    Phil Hughes
    Scott Kazmir
    Ricky Nolasco
    Scott Feldman
    Josh Johnson



    I did not include Garza because he was trouble in the clubhouse when he was here and he has been trouble everywhere else he has been. I can’t image they would even entertain bringing him back.
    Last edited by Major Leauge Ready; 10-19-2013 at 11:48 PM.

  5. #25
    Please ban me! All-Star stringer bell's Avatar
    Posts
    2,554
    Like
    88
    Liked 136 Times in 96 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25
    I like Feldman, Johnson, Tanaka, and think bringing back Pelfrey wouldn't be a mistake either.

  6. #26
    As others in this thread have said, for once let's go for quality over quantity.

    I'd love to see the Twins make a significant offer to win the rights to negotiate with Tanaka. Since this could be upwards of of $40 (plus the 8-9 mill Tanaka will probably earn in the first year of his contract), this will be a pretty spendy proposition. If they don't sign any one else to anything more than a one year contract, the Twins should be set to have quite a bit of money left to spend next year as well. That's when I'd like to see them throw a hefty four year deal Homer Bailey's way. That would give the Twins to solid starters for the next several years. If any of Gibson/Meyer/May/Stewart/Berrios become decent, we could be looking at a pretty good rotation as we head into the Sano/Buxton era.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Triple-A amjgt's Avatar
    Posts
    334
    Like
    13
    Liked 35 Times in 25 Posts
    If I told you that the Twins would get Tanaka (Let's say $50M posting and 6yr/70M contract), but not ANYONE else for the rotation, would you be happy with that offseason?

  8. #28
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,148
    Like
    62
    Liked 74 Times in 50 Posts
    $12MM seems high for a net reduction to the Twins. It's the cheap seats that don't get sold. These are the $13-$17 seats mostly. Include a bit more reduction for the $8 seats sold at "demand pricing" for walkups. Concessions--the Twins get a % of the gross as net revenue. $6MM reduction for that 300k attendance loss. The big dollar seats (between the bases from the suites down to the field) get sold.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwak View Post
    $12MM seems high for a net reduction to the Twins. It's the cheap seats that don't get sold. These are the $13-$17 seats mostly. Include a bit more reduction for the $8 seats sold at "demand pricing" for walkups. Concessions--the Twins get a % of the gross as net revenue. $6MM reduction for that 300k attendance loss. The big dollar seats (between the bases from the suites down to the field) get sold.
    A couple million one way or the other probably won't have any impact in terms of spending this year but you might be right about the $12M being high. I would guess the ratio of cheap vs expensive seats that don't get sold is fairly equal but I base that on nothing but speculation. It would be interesting to see how much merchandise sales fall when they stink. You would think that would take a pretty good hit.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.