Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Should Twins Offer Dempster A 3-Year Deal?

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's almost over.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,997 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:42 PM

[quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='70charger'][quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='Top Gun']Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.[/QUOTE]

Exactly..[/QUOTE]

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.[/QUOTE]

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Why don't you spare us the condescension and let us know?

#42 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:47 PM

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?


While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.


The 112M was in 2011, not 2010...and the payroll wasn't to go for it after a disappointing finish to a promising 2010 season. It was mostly for pay raises due. Remember Mauer's pay raise kicked in...just for one example. In fact, payroll went up, even after they jettisoned their starting middle IFs and gutted their bullpen. There was no talent gain for 2011 to show they were going for it. Raises were just due.

#43 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:48 PM

[quote name='twinsnorth49'][quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='70charger'][quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='Top Gun']Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.[/QUOTE]

Exactly..[/QUOTE]

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.[/QUOTE]

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Why don't you spare us the condescension and let us know?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was hoping to get an answer. If it came off that way, it was not intentional.

Edited by ThePuck, 03 December 2012 - 03:53 PM.


#44 joeboo_22

joeboo_22

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:51 PM

I agree with the aspect that the Twins should spend money, and the fans should expect and want them to spend money. But I think if they want to spend money just to spend money they are hurting the franchise for years to come. Now because of the draft/cba situation a little bit more organizational money is able to go to payroll, however if you start giving 3-4-5 year deals to 35+ year old pitchers or pitchers with arm problems, you are asking for trouble. Now at the same time that doesn't mean you go dumpster diving to get your rotation but you still have to be somewhat smart about it.

#45 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,445 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?


While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.


Yeah, I don't get it, and the constant bitching about payroll gives me tired head. We aren't even in Janurary yet, now is not the time to worry about total payroll. I do know one thing, spending money for the sole sake of spending money is a really bad idea, especially when you are talking long term deals. At this point I'm much more worried about our payroll obligations for 2014/2015 then I am for 2013. In a perfect world the Twins would sign a top tier pitcher to a long term deal, and any of the guys who project to be #4/#5's be brought it on one year deals and potentially a two year deal as long as it isn't to expensive.

At the end of the day: Give me Hendriks as our #5 then giving a guy like Dempster 3 years, as there actually is a pretty decent chance Hendriks gives you similar value for about 12 million+ less a year.

#46 puckett1992

puckett1992

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:00 PM

Bringing Dempster aboard for veteran leadership for younger pitchers on the staff would be ideal, but going more than 2 years on Dempster is asking for trouble. He also seems better suited for the NL given his stuff, though he only played 2 months with Texas this past year with pretty sub-par results in a pennant race.

Based on reports from the mlbtraderumors site several days ago, Dempster rejected a 2 year/$26 million offer from the Brewers, so 3 years/$39 million may do it, but I would hope the Twins would only give a third year as an option and not at $13 million for the third year.

#47 ericchri

ericchri

    Generally Clueless

  • Members
  • 422 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:01 PM

Anyone know if there's an official place to look this up? I recall (thus completely untrustworthy) an interview with Dave St. Peter from around April that indicated the revenue sharing situation for the Twins was changing due to Target Field. To my (untrustworthy) recollection, I believe St. Peter indicated the Twins received a large amount from revenue sharing in 2010, since it was determined by the previous financials from the Metrodome. Then the revenue sharing in 2011 was relatively neutral, and in 2012 the Twins started paying in fairly significantly. So out of all of that payroll cut from 2011 to 2012, a good bit of it actually went to revenue sharing, not the owners' pockets.

Granted I suspect they probably could afford to pay much more in payroll, I'm not really arguing that at all. I don't have access to financials, though. But I get a little crosseyed every time year-to-year payrolls are compared to each other in exclusion of everything else.


Edit: Doing some of my own checking, I came across the quote I was thinking of, and I wasn't remembering it quite correctly. From this article, http://www.startribu...s=3051&c=340212, he's quoted as saying:

On the radio, St. Peter also gave a clear answer to a question many of us have had: How has the team’s revenue sharing picture changed since it left the Metrodome? St. Peter said the Twins were collecting about $20 million in revenue sharing money in their final years at the Dome. After a one-year grace period that teams get when they move into a new ballpark, the Twins paid $10 million into the revenue sharing pot this year.

That’s a $30 million swing, when comparing the Twins revenues in 2009 and 2011.

Edited by ericchri, 03 December 2012 - 04:10 PM.


#48 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 604 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:03 PM

Your recollection is mostly correct except for 2011 being neutral, the payed into Revenue Sharing into 2011 and 2012.

#49 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's almost over.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,997 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

[quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='ThePuck']Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?[/QUOTE]

While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't get it, and the constant bitching about payroll gives me tired head. We aren't even in Janurary yet, now is not the time to worry about total payroll. I do know one thing, spending money for the sole sake of spending money is a really bad idea, especially when you are talking long term deals. At this point I'm much more worried about our payroll obligations for 2014/2015 then I am for 2013. In a perfect world the Twins would sign a top tier pitcher to a long term deal, and any of the guys who project to be #4/#5's be brought it on one year deals and potentially a two year deal as long as it isn't to expensive.

At the end of the day: Give me Hendriks as our #5 then giving a guy like Dempster 3 years, as there actually is a pretty decent chance Hendriks gives you similar value for about 12 million+ less a year.[/QUOTE]

Getting somewhat back to the original topic, Hendriks is a way better gamble as similar value as a back end guy than 3/39 for Dempster, no brainer in my opinion. Getting Dempster on those terms definitely fits into the spending money to spend money philosophy.

Edited by twinsnorth49, 03 December 2012 - 04:16 PM.


#50 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,445 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:11 PM

Bringing Dempster aboard for veteran leadership for younger pitchers on the staff would be ideal, but going more than 2 years on Dempster is asking for trouble. He also seems better suited for the NL given his stuff, though he only played 2 months with Texas this past year with pretty sub-par results in a pennant race.

Based on reports from the mlbtraderumors site several days ago, Dempster rejected a 2 year/$26 million offer from the Brewers, so 3 years/$39 million may do it, but I would hope the Twins would only give a third year as an option and not at $13 million for the third year.


If Dempster turned down 2/26 from an NL team I doubt he would agree to 2/26 + 1/13 option from an AL team, unless the buy out on that option was abnormally high.

I think he is going to push for as many years as he can get, as this very well could be his last contract.

#51 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,655 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:20 PM

So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.

#52 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

I would do a 3/39 for him as he is likely to give us 200 ip per year around a 4.00 era (this is why I liked the Pavano deal 2 years ago as he should have given us similare results) but Dempster is likely to k 7or 8 per 9 innings for most the contract. Do it and move on to Myers.

#53 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:45 PM

Anyone know if there's an official place to look this up? I recall (thus completely untrustworthy) an interview with Dave St. Peter from around April that indicated the revenue sharing situation for the Twins was changing due to Target Field. To my (untrustworthy) recollection, I believe St. Peter indicated the Twins received a large amount from revenue sharing in 2010, since it was determined by the previous financials from the Metrodome. Then the revenue sharing in 2011 was relatively neutral, and in 2012 the Twins started paying in fairly significantly. So out of all of that payroll cut from 2011 to 2012, a good bit of it actually went to revenue sharing, not the owners' pockets.

Granted I suspect they probably could afford to pay much more in payroll, I'm not really arguing that at all. I don't have access to financials, though. But I get a little crosseyed every time year-to-year payrolls are compared to each other in exclusion of everything else.


Edit: Doing some of my own checking, I came across the quote I was thinking of, and I wasn't remembering it quite correctly. From this article, http://www.startribu...s=3051&c=340212, he's quoted as saying:

On the radio, St. Peter also gave a clear answer to a question many of us have had: How has the team’s revenue sharing picture changed since it left the Metrodome? St. Peter said the Twins were collecting about $20 million in revenue sharing money in their final years at the Dome. After a one-year grace period that teams get when they move into a new ballpark, the Twins paid $10 million into the revenue sharing pot this year.

That’s a $30 million swing, when comparing the Twins revenues in 2009 and 2011.


Now THAT was actually fantastic info. I learned something there. Thanks for that.

Now, let me ask this question. Does that mean TF is only gonna allow us to raise payroll by 23M from 2007's payroll? Considering that was 6 years ago and how salaries have gone up quite a bit since then (Upton's new ridiculous salary, for example), the new park basically just allowed the Twins to stay more or less at the same pay rate?

#54 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,445 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.


I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL

#55 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,655 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:38 PM

I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL


Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.

#56 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,445 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL


Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.

I think Sanchez is a #2 to be honest as is Haren. Jackson and Marcum are sort of on the fringe of being good #3's as well.

#57 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:51 PM

[quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave'][quote name='TheLeviathan'][quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave']I have no problem over paying for players, those players have to be better then Ryan Dempster though. This team needs front line starters, not more #4/#5 types. I'd be shocked if Dempster were able to post a sub 4.00 ERA in the AL[/QUOTE]

Except there really aren't any frontline pitchers. There are a bunch of #3s that people are touting better than that and Zach Grienke. So get used to this.[/QUOTE]
I think Sanchez is a #2 to be honest as is Haren. Jackson and Marcum are sort of on the fringe of being good #3's as well.[/QUOTE]

Which is better than anything we have. So lets go after em!

#58 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,183 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:01 PM

Call me crazy but I think spending 115 million this year would be stupid.

As for Dempster... I'd be happy if Terry Ryan identified one guy... One guy who makes sense for at least 3 years or more and go get him. I don't care what they pay him... I care if they land him. If TR thinks Dempster is that guy... It wouldn't be my choice but Ok...

One guy... And then bargain shop with some prove it deals. One guy who could be on the roster when Meyer hits town. If he signed for a price that makes Vodkadave throw up... I don't care. Pick the guy you like best and get him.

Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.

#59 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:05 PM

Did I mention... I don't think that guy is Dempster.


You've been pretty vague about that...:-)

#60 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's almost over.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,997 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

So....another thread in which many of the same people who campaigned to solve our pitching woes in free agency balking at the completely normal overpayments required to sign free agents? Jesus....ST can't come soon enough. Watching Duensing start is less obnoxious.


It's not about overpaying for Dempster or anyone else, it's about overpaying Dempster for 3 years being wrong. I'm under no illusion it's going to cost to get what we want and we need to pay it, I'm saying what we want shouldn't be Dempster for 3 years.

Edited by twinsnorth49, 03 December 2012 - 09:24 PM.