Jump to content

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

Twins 2018 payroll

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,230 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:25 PM

https://docs.google....0Uergz8/pubhtml

 

Thought it might be good to put this as its own thread considering some of the other threads. Twins next year are already at 71m for five guys under contract + Perkins payout and money to Park and Nolasco. 

 

They have a few guys arb eligible - Giminez (A4 year), Esobar and Recker (A3 year), Gibson, Pressly, Adrianza (A2 year), May, Grossman (A1 year). Giminez and Recker are pretty easy DFAs. Gibson is probably, as well. Esobar would probably make 4m or so, Pressly and Adrianza might combine for 4m. May and Grossman maybe 2m combined? So that's roughly 10m for those five guys.

 

So, 10 guys getting roughly 81m. If you pay the other 15 guys on the 25 man roster about 560k, that's about 8.5m.So payroll is, already, 89.5m. Assuming they have a 110m or so payroll, which would be the second highest ever for the Twins, that gives them only around 20m or so to add on.

 

Even Tony Sipp-like relief pitchers get 6m/yr. A middling starter gets 12m/yr or more (Santana, Nolasco, Garza, Jackson etc). A big bat like JD Martinez would probably get at least 20m/yr.So the Twins might be able to stretch their payroll and add another starting pitcher for the back of the rotation and hope he catches fire like Santana did and really pray that he doesn't turn into another Nolasco or Hughes. And take a gamble on a set-up man. Or, more likely, they'll sign a number of vets to 1-3m deals, hope a few catch fire.

  • Oldgoat_MN, Sconnie, Vanimal46 and 2 others like this

#2 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 8,200 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:24 AM

Thanks for putting this together. They'll have to make some interesting decisions this off-season. I'm not sure if I'm willing to give Escobar $4 MM when Adrianza could fill the role at $1 MM. The others you mentioned DFA'ing Gimenez, Gibson, Recker are easy cuts. 

Hughes' contract is really sticking out as an albatross at the moment. It would make the payroll situation much better if they found a way to get rid of that money. 


#3 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,230 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:29 AM

Thanks. I forgot to mention that if Hughes doesn't pitch next year, insurance will pick up some of his salary - I think up to half, but I'm not sure - so there would some salary relief in that instance.

  • Otwins likes this

#4 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 8,200 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:33 AM

Also, question about May. Since he's been out for the whole season, does that delay his arbitration eligibility? Or will he just have a minimal contract increase for his A1 year? 


#5 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:37 AM

For reference, the B-Ref contracts page is pretty accurate for the guaranteed money too, although I find their arb estimates wrong:

https://www.baseball...contracts.shtml
  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

#6 Darius

Darius

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:41 AM

Limbo. How low can they go?

#7 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,230 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:46 AM

 

Also, question about May. Since he's been out for the whole season, does that delay his arbitration eligibility? Or will he just have a minimal contract increase for his A1 year? 

No, he was on the 25 man roster so all his time counts.


#8 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,510 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:53 AM

 

No, he was on the 25 man roster so all his time counts.

 

 

Which is why JT Chargois remains a wasted spot on the 40 man roster.  The Twins could have retroactively placed him on the MLB 60 day DL.  They chose not to do so.  No service time.  No MLB salary.


#9 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:55 AM

I would absolutely give Escobar 4M in arb. And he is necessary depending on how much you expect Sano to play 3B and really, really necessary if they trade Dozier.

If Dozier isn't traded then they need to move one of the MI'ers unless they plan on Escobar playing 80 games at 3B. He won't be far away from that this year though.

There is no reason that the Twins 2018 payroll needs to be capped at 110M. That is operating like a very small market team (22nd payroll this year). I don't have an issue with rebuilding teams keeping payroll low and playing a bunch of pre-arb players or cheap veterans on short term contracts but if they plan on contending then they could bump payroll up significantly (at least 150M/yr). I wouldn't spend drunkenly all in one year but 110M definitely isn't a limit at all.

  • BK432, Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan and 7 others like this

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#10 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 8,200 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:11 AM

 

I would absolutely give Escobar 4M in arb. And he is necessary depending on how much you expect Sano to play 3B and really, really necessary if they trade Dozier.

If Dozier isn't traded then they need to move one of the MI'ers unless they plan on Escobar playing 80 games at 3B. He won't be far away from that this year though.

There is no reason that the Twins 2018 payroll needs to be capped at 110M. That is operating like a very small market team (22nd payroll this year). I don't have an issue with rebuilding teams keeping payroll low and playing a bunch of pre-arb players or cheap veterans on short term contracts but if they plan on contending then they could bump payroll up significantly (at least 150M/yr). I wouldn't spend drunkenly all in one year but 110M definitely isn't a limit at all.

 

As a fan, I'd love to see the Twins get their payroll up to $150 MM. I just don't know how realistic it is under the ownership of the Pohlad's.... 

  • gunnarthor, Sconnie and SF Twins Fan like this

#11 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:24 AM

 

As a fan, I'd love to see the Twins get their payroll up to $150 MM. I just don't know how realistic it is under the ownership of the Pohlad's.... 

Why not? They boosted payroll up to the top ten in the majors the last time they had contending teams. Is it really so difficult to see them get to the top 15 now that they have put together the pieces for a contending team?

  • BK432, Oldgoat_MN, jun and 1 other like this

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#12 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 8,200 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:34 AM

 

Why not? They boosted payroll up to the top ten in the majors the last time they had contending teams. Is it really so difficult to see them get to the top 15 now that they have put together the pieces for a contending team?

 

It's just something we've never seen in Minnesota before. The Pohlad's have the cash to make it happen, but they've never exceeded $115 MM before. I'd like nothing more than to increase payroll, as it's easy to spend other people's money! But we have ~20+ years of data suggesting that the team tops out at a certain level of payroll. 


#13 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:39 AM

 

It's just something we've never seen in Minnesota before. The Pohlad's have the cash to make it happen, but they've never exceeded $115 MM before. I'd like nothing more than to increase payroll, as it's easy to spend other people's money! But we have ~20+ years of data suggesting that the team tops out at a certain level of payroll. 

This doesn't account for inflation. The Twins had the 9th highest payroll in 2010 and the 10th highest the year before. This is evidence that they will spend (not Yankees level) when they have a winner. I certainly don't expect them to make the jump all at once but the numbers of 110M or 115M are meaningless constraints.

  • BK432, jun, KidBro and 1 other like this

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#14 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,230 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:52 AM

 

This doesn't account for inflation. The Twins had the 9th highest payroll in 2010 and the 10th highest the year before. This is evidence that they will spend (not Yankees level) when they have a winner. I certainly don't expect them to make the jump all at once but the numbers of 110M or 115M are meaningless constraints.

Inflation isn't going to move the needle that much. The Twins don't have one of those big TV deals that seemingly every other team got. They've always been a modest franchise and they hired Falvey who has experience in building small market teams through the draft and trades and not spending big in FA. I doubt that was an accident. 

 

And here is what Levine said in a recent interview - "We all know where the Minnesota's payroll ranks among the 30 clubs. We're not going to be in the top 10, and we're fine with that. There's no excuses about the payroll. .... And if we're acknowledging that we're going to be a little bit behind on the payroll, we tried to present to ownership—we shouldn't be behind on the infrastructure because if you're not spending on the field and also not spending off the field, outside of sheer dumb luck, I'm not sure how you're vanquishing foes, and our goal is to vanquish the foes."

 

That doesn't sound like a GM who thinks payroll is going to increase much. Maybe the Twins can get close to 120m payroll but I would bet it's closer to 110m.

  • Vanimal46 and SF Twins Fan like this

#15 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,510 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:59 AM

 

This doesn't account for inflation. The Twins had the 9th highest payroll in 2010 and the 10th highest the year before. This is evidence that they will spend (not Yankees level) when they have a winner. I certainly don't expect them to make the jump all at once but the numbers of 110M or 115M are meaningless constraints.

 

 

Revenue generated isn't a meaningless constraint.  Twins have pretty consistently capped player salaries at about 50% of team revenue. They've been below that figure in some years, but I don't think they have gone over it in recent memory. Twins revenue in 2016 was about $ 249 mil, up from $ 240 mil in 2015, according to this report.  Assuming a modest increase for 2017, maybe to $ 255 to $ 260 mil.  That still caps payroll at $ 130 mil, at best.  That would put them 16th in 2017, behind the Rockies.

Edited by yarnivek1972, 22 August 2017 - 10:01 AM.

  • Don Walcott likes this

#16 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:04 AM

 

Revenue generated isn't a meaningless constraint.  Twins have pretty consistently capped player salaries at about 50% of team revenue. They've been below that figure in some years, but I don't think they have gone over it in recent memory. Twins revenue in 2016 was about $ 249 mil, up from $ 240 mil in 2015, according to this report.  Assuming a modest increase for 2017, maybe to $ 255 to $ 260 mil.  That still caps payroll at $ 130 mil, at best.  That would put them 16th in 2017, behind the Rockies.

Attendance has also plummeted due to 5 years of bottom 5 performance. That affects revenues. Win games and fans will come back. It is a beautiful park and Twins fans are great but they can't deal with constant losing.

  • laloesch and Don Walcott like this

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#17 BK432

BK432

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 235 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN
  • Twitter: bk432

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:05 AM

I think $125M to $130M is a reasonable expectation, if not in 2018, then 2019. I see no reason why that won't happen, and shouldn't happen. They'll need to buy a couple pieces to supplement, and by 2019 should have plenty of dollars available to go out and get what they need.

  • dbminn and KidBro like this

#18 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,510 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:09 AM

 

Attendance has also plummeted due to 5 years of bottom 5 performance. That affects revenues. Win games and fans will come back. It is a beautiful park and Twins fans are great but they can't deal with constant losing.

Attendance per game is up slightly this year (about 650 per game).  It figures to jump more down the stretch with the Twins in contention when they were all but eliminated by this time last season.

Edited by yarnivek1972, 22 August 2017 - 10:10 AM.


#19 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:36 AM

 

Attendance per game is up slightly this year (about 650 per game).  It figures to jump more down the stretch with the Twins in contention when they were all but eliminated by this time last season.

It takes more than one season for attendance numbers to jump up but the point is that the Pohlad's have spent money (compared to the MLB) before. 

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#20 SwainZag

SwainZag

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,808 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:48 AM

 

I would absolutely give Escobar 4M in arb. And he is necessary depending on how much you expect Sano to play 3B and really, really necessary if they trade Dozier.

If Dozier isn't traded then they need to move one of the MI'ers unless they plan on Escobar playing 80 games at 3B. He won't be far away from that this year though.

There is no reason that the Twins 2018 payroll needs to be capped at 110M. That is operating like a very small market team (22nd payroll this year). I don't have an issue with rebuilding teams keeping payroll low and playing a bunch of pre-arb players or cheap veterans on short term contracts but if they plan on contending then they could bump payroll up significantly (at least 150M/yr). I wouldn't spend drunkenly all in one year but 110M definitely isn't a limit at all.

 

I just can't see Dozier being traded anymore now.  After last season yes, but with so many guys looking like they have turned the corner, how do you trade him now?  I have no problem keeping Esco around on a 1 year deal, there's really no one knocking on the door to play 3rd to spell Sano.