Jump to content

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

Article: Emptying the Notebook: Happ, Dipoto, Boras and Blueprints

j.a. happ
  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#61 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,556 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:47 PM

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

 

With the exception of LoMo, most of the guys they spent money on lived up to their expectations. It was Sano, Buxton, Santana, Dozier, and Polanco that sunk the team. 

  • Carole Keller, birdwatcher, Jerr and 3 others like this

#62 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,048 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:51 PM

 

The answer is extremely obvious for anyone who has ever had P&L responsibility of a 9 figure entity. Is it a better business practice to invest 50/60 or 70M on the low probability that the prospects that have struggled becomes stars or do you suppose the people who are investing that money would elect to invest once the prospects are proving to pan out? You know this how any team outside the top 10 in revenue operate so why would you ask such a silly question? 

How does spending $10 now and $70 next year, or $60 now and $20 next year, change P&L?

 

Are you one of those failed businessmen who focused solely on the quarterly report, and ignored the yearly and long term reports?

 

If anything, In terms of a baseball team's business side--one in desperate need of some buzz to generate interest--you might be better off spending now. At the least, no worse.

 

And in baseball terms, the guys you need might not be available if you wait to sign them until you don't really need them, in addition to which by then your prospects are getting more expensive.

 

And if your prospects don't pan out, at least you'll have the players you signed to trade for more prospects to sell to your fanbase.

 

A baseball team isn't measured by normal methods anyway. No owner gets into baseball expecting to expand his riches. He eventually makes his money by franchise value increase, but his goal is (or should be) to watch his toy win a world championship. It's not a P&L business. It's a Ws&Ls business. That's how his ownership will be viewed by his customers.

 

 

  • Carole Keller, Jerr, Ben Noble and 1 other like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#63 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 02:30 PM

How does spending $10 now and $70 next year, or $60 now and $20 next year, change P&L?

Are you one of those failed businessmen who focused solely on the quarterly report, and ignored the yearly and long term reports?



Would LOVE to compare resumes.

#64 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,048 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 09 November 2018 - 02:42 PM

 

Would love to compare resumes.

 

I'd settle for an answer to the question.

  • birdwatcher, nicksaviking and Rigby like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#65 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 03:47 PM

 

I'd settle for an answer to the question.

 

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

 

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

 

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis.If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M.


#66 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 03:48 PM

 

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

 

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

 

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis.If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M. This is not theoretical. It's fact.

 


#67 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,296 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:23 PM

With the exception of LoMo, most of the guys they spent money on lived up to their expectations. It was Sano, Buxton, Santana, Dozier, and Polanco that sunk the team.


Maybe... But if one war was the expectation, then they had the wrong expectation..... And now they need to fill those exact holes again, since they went one year mostly.

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#68 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,296 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:25 PM

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis. If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M.


If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#69 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,705 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:38 PM

If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?


There is more competition not to be competitive than trying to compete next season... Ironic, don't you think?
  • Rigby likes this

#70 Jacksson

Jacksson

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 08:40 PM

Twins could spend up to $206 MILLION on payroll without running afoul of Baseball's Luxury Tax. Pohlad family just doesn’t like to have a business enterprise that does not fund itself. Fact of the matter is that you have to spend money to make money. The novelty of the new stadium has worn off. The local hero has retired. Time to start putting a good product out onto the field. Kiss up to an agent and make him an offer he can't refuse for a couple of big buck clients. Trade for a couple of high profile players. The only reason everyone got down on Joe is because ownership continually preached the payroll limit. The Pohlad's NEVER opened up the war chest they have built up at the expense of the citizens of the Twin Cities and used the money to surround Mauer with the additional talent he deserved to forge a truly competitive team. Who could be added to the 2019 team if an additional $80 Million were made available to be spent? Machado? Corbin? Kuetchel? Familia? Kelly? The Pohlads DO know they can leverage the operating losses of one business to offset (for tax purposes) the profits of others. They just choose not to.

#71 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 07:58 AM

 

If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?

 

If you reach a bit you could make that inference but that is not remotely the point being made here. The point is that 10M/WAR free agents are counterproductive to building a contender for teams with less than average revenue. That pointed was highlighted by the fact I provided mathematical proof. I would think people would either contest the math or acknowledge the production/dollar spent is crucial to below average revenue teams building a contender. Even the large market teams have come to appreciate the importance but as I have shown in the previous post it’s not as critical to teams with the highest revenue.. This has been a huge point of contention here. Most will just ignore the proof I just offered and continue to complain about the organization won’t do something because they are cheap when the motivation is much more likely they believe for good reason the move would be counterproductive. 

 

Instead of refuting the proof or acknowledging the conclusion on what was clearly the point you jumped to the conclusion that I “don't think they should try to compete next year?” I wrote show me a scenario where this is achieved using $10M/WAR free agents which is completely consistent with the main point I just described. The fact that I reject a specific strategy / approach does not mean I reject the objective of trying to win. The reference to other teams retooling was defining “win” and setting the bar for # of wins because a 90 win team is not really a contender and I am not interested in a plan where the likely outcome is get our a$$e$ kicked in the playoffs. Every blueprint presented here makes us better but none of them (including the $150M plan) construct a team that is realistically close to Boston / Houston / NY. Part of the point is that if we can’t construct a true contender, what’s the difference between 86 and 88 or even 90 wins. I certainly am not trading any good prospects to get from 84 to 87 wins. I will trade them when I get to 87 wins (see Milwaukee)


#72 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 08:11 AM

 

Twins could spend up to $206 MILLION on payroll without running afoul of Baseball's Luxury Tax. Pohlad family just doesn’t like to have a business enterprise that does not fund itself. Fact of the matter is that you have to spend money to make money. The novelty of the new stadium has worn off. The local hero has retired. Time to start putting a good product out onto the field. Kiss up to an agent and make him an offer he can't refuse for a couple of big buck clients. Trade for a couple of high profile players. The only reason everyone got down on Joe is because ownership continually preached the payroll limit. The Pohlad's NEVER opened up the war chest they have built up at the expense of the citizens of the Twin Cities and used the money to surround Mauer with the additional talent he deserved to forge a truly competitive team. Who could be added to the 2019 team if an additional $80 Million were made available to be spent? Machado? Corbin? Kuetchel? Familia? Kelly? The Pohlads DO know they can leverage the operating losses of one business to offset (for tax purposes) the profits of others. They just choose not to.

 

Apple made 48B in 2017 (the Twins made $23M) By your logic Apple should give $100B worth of product to their customers.What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 10 November 2018 - 08:16 AM.


#73 Han Joelo

Han Joelo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 08:57 AM

If someone could somehow summarize the discussion between MLBReady vs. the Others, and let me know if it is really interesting and edifying, I might go back and read all those posts, if my coffee doesn't run out.  Not being all that snarky; seems like some interesting stuff, maybe.

 

In the meantime, there are more dead limbs on Boras' Mockery Tree to address:

 

In a way, Boras was actually complementing the Twins.  Bear with me, as I am about to do maths.  And keep in mind that old axiom about statistics being lies and damn lies.

 

If one Twin attends a baseball game, 50% of Twins are at the game.  Extrapolating this line of reasoning out to other teams, we can make the following statistical confunderies (made up that word just now.)

 

If only one Astro showed up for a game, say, Buzz Aldrin, that would mean 532 Astros didn't show up, although that number accounts for ALL humans who have ever been to space, living or dead.  Some fans are dead inside, to be sure, but probably not Astros fans right now.  1 out of the 533 people who have been in space is not good.  Doing slightly better is San Diego, depending on how you slice it--

 

If only one Padre showed up for a game, maybe Father Mulcahey, that would represent about 1 of the 200 or so Catholic Military Chaplains currently serving in the military were at the game.  If you expanded the meaning of 'padre' to its literal Spanish definition, but confined it to just actual Spanish speakers, it would mean that only 1 out of approximately 150 million Spanish-speaking males that have children (a guess, at best) in the world--el mundo--made it to the game.  Pathetic.

 

Lastly, if only one Indian showed up for a game in Cleveland, that would mean 1,338,999,999 Indians did not attend the game, as they were presumably more interested in a cricket match.

 

I would say that having half of your fans at the game is the highest percentage any team is capable of producing using this turn of phrase-- depending on how you define "socks"--one pair of socks, or all of the socks of a certain color in the entire world?  By the latter definition, I'd have to surmise the the Chicago White Sox have the worst fans in the entire world.

 

 

Edited by Han Joelo, 10 November 2018 - 09:35 AM.

  • Carole Keller, USAFChief and nicksaviking like this

#74 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,813 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 10 November 2018 - 09:15 AM

I mostly agree with MLR... maybe a slight disagreement with him on how close we are but... I mostly agree with him. 

 

The money isn't endless no matter how much the Pohlad's have in their pocket. Even the Dodgers are trying to roll back on their spending trying to attract investors. 

 

The money has to be spent sensibly. 

 

That isn't to say that I wouldn't love to have Machado or Harper on the team. I'd be real excited to have them in a Twins uniform but you could probably sign 3 decent players for the price of one Machado and we need at least 3 decent players.  

 

If we sign Machado... how does it make us different than the 2018 Orioles, who finished with the worst record in baseball?.

 

Machado and Sano last year was the equivalent of Machado and Chris Davis last year. Machado, Sano and Dozier was the equivalent of Machado, Davis and Schoop last year. Add on Adam Jones, Mark Trumbo, Trey Mancini and the Orioles had a team full of people who could hit but didn't hit and they didn't have anybody else to turn to. 

 

The Twins have the money to sign Machado but in my opinion they need to take that money and sign three players instead. 

 

I'd rather have Marwin, Murphy and Miller for the same price as Machado. 

 

Disclaimer: It was on purpose that I only chose players whose last names started with "M" for an example.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Han Joelo likes this

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#75 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,831 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 10 November 2018 - 09:27 AM

 

By the latter any and every definition, I'd have to surmise the the Chicago White Sox have the worst fans in the entire world.

FTFY. :)

  • USAFChief and Han Joelo like this

Trust everybody ... then cut the cards.


#76 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,048 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 10 November 2018 - 10:06 AM

I mostly agree with MLR... maybe a slight disagreement with him on how close we are but... I mostly agree with him.

The money isn't endless no matter how much the Pohlad's have in their pocket. Even the Dodgers are trying to roll back on their spending trying to attract investors.

The money has to be spent sensibly.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't love to have Machado or Harper on the team. I'd be real excited to have them in a Twins uniform but you could probably sign 3 decent players for the price of one Machado and we need at least 3 decent players.

If we sign Machado... how does it make us different than the 2018 Orioles, who finished with the worst record in baseball?.

Machado and Sano last year was the equivalent of Machado and Chris Davis last year. Machado, Sano and Dozier was the equivalent of Machado, Davis and Schoop last year. Add on Adam Jones, Mark Trumbo, Trey Mancini and the Orioles had a team full of people who could hit but didn't hit and they didn't have anybody else to turn to.

The Twins have the money to sign Machado but in my opinion they need to take that money and sign three players instead.

I'd rather have Marwin, Murphy and Miller for the same price as Machado.

Disclaimer: It was on purpose that I only chose players whose last names started with "M" for an example.

The Twins don’t have to choose between signing Machado, or Marwin, Murphy and Miller.

They can do all four.
  • Carole Keller, Twins33, Riverbrian and 1 other like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#77 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,813 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 10 November 2018 - 10:41 AM

 

The Twins don’t have to choose between signing Machado, or Marwin, Murphy and Miller.

They can do all four.

 

Yes they could. I stopped at 3 because it was (in my opinion) an equivalent price for what Machado would cost and it was also the point that MLR was trying to make. 

 

We can keep going along those same lines. If the Twins have the money to spend on Machado, Marwin, Murphy and Miller. They would also have the money to spend, Marwin, Murphy, Miller, McCutchen, Moustakas and Morton. 

 

This is going to be important to me personally because I'm trying to avoid any scenerio that involves saying... OK Sano and Buxton... here is the starting job and if you fail... we have Motter to turn to.

 

I'd rather see the Twins sign Marwin, Murphy, Miller, McCutchen, Moustakas and Morton to plug all the holes. 

 

Disclaimer: This is for example purposes, I don't believe that the Twins will sign 6 free agents this year. 

 

BTW... If you come back with that the Twins could sign Marwin, Murphy, Miller, McCtuchen, Moustakas and Morton plus Machado. I'm just letting you know that at some point in time... I'm going to run out of options that start with "m".:)

 

 

  • USAFChief likes this

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#78 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 10:59 AM

 

The Twins don’t have to choose between signing Machado, or Marwin, Murphy and Miller.

They can do all four.

 

I would have no problem with these signing with perhaps the exception of Miller because I don't know how realistic it is to expect him to come back to close to his past performance. If Buxton and Sano both bounce back and all 4 FAs perform at out above expectation these adds would get us close to the top teams. The Depth Charts projection is 10.1 wins. Of course, this would be the gain if they were replacing replacement level players but that’s not the case. It's a net add of 5-6 wins?

 

That gets us to 82 wins so we would need another 12-14 wins from Buxton/Sano and the other positions combined. The odds of that all working out are about the same as us getting Machado but it would not hurt us unless we are paying #35M/tr Machado until he is 38. Machado is a great long-term add and Marwin's flexibility should be an asset for as long as he is here. Murphy is a good 2 year placeholder. I see Miller as a risk but I don't have enough info to have a strong opinion.

 

5.2 Machado
1.7 Gonzalez
2.5 Murphy
0.7 Miller
----
10.1

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 10 November 2018 - 11:00 AM.

  • Riverbrian likes this

#79 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,813 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 10 November 2018 - 11:16 AM

 

I would have no problem with these signing with perhaps the exception of Miller because I don't know how realistic it is to expect him to come back to close to his past performance. 

 

C'mon Man... You are not even considering the fact that his name starts with "M"!:)

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#80 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Joe's Shades™

  • Members
  • 2,853 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 05:26 PM

WAR is goofy and it hides too much important information. It only takes a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes to figure out what "sticks out" about a player, be it positive or negative. You can't do this with WAR.

 

What makes it worse is there are different algorithms. Baseball Prospectus's WAR(P) seems like utter nonsense, and Fangraphs' WAR seems inflated 30-40% of the time. Baseball Reference's WAR is the most consistent, though it slightly understates player value in my opinion. But even then, bWAR usually the last stat I look at when I'm analyzing a player....

Edited by Doomtints, 10 November 2018 - 05:32 PM.