Jump to content

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

Chance Twins open season with 75/80m payroll??

  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#141 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:22 PM

And if the Twins do that, I'll be the first in line with a torch and pitchfork in hand. But until that happens, I'm not going to speculate wildly. The drop in payroll after 2011 was a given; the team went from receiving revenue sharing to paying into the system, a swing of thirty million dollars.


You might want to at least get the torch and pitchfork handy, Brock.

In 2007, the Twins opened the year with a $71,439,500 payroll (according to Cot's). As things stand now, if we consider Nick Blackburn's 2013 pay as a sunk cost, the remainder of the Twins payroll looks to be about $74,100,000. Adjusted for even moderate inflation (and there's been nothing moderate about the rate of inflation of MLB salaries), I think we're already in the Metrodome payroll neighborhood.
I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

#142 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

Let's say Greinke turns into a lemon three years into the contract. You now have a declining Mauer and a worthless Greinke eating $50m. What do you do in that situation?

(answer: lose a lot of games)


then you send them to rochester till they quit or some one else picks them up

#143 Einstein

Einstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

I just posted an article on this last night at Knuckleballs (and re-posted here at TD this morning). Absent another Major League signing, the Twins currently appear to have about $79,600,000 committed for 2013 (and this includes the $5.5 million they owe Nick Blackburn). It may be a few bucks more if you assume Rich Harden will make the Opening Day roster and get more than the MLB minimum should he do so. That would be more than $20 million LESS than the Opening Day payroll commitment a year ago.

So yeah... Joe Mauer's pay is certainly NOT affecting what the Twins FO can do right now. It's not that they can't afford better pitching, they are simply choosing not to acquire it.

Thanks for the link! Good read!

#144 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:44 PM

Have no fear everyone! MLBTR reporting we are close to a two year deal with Kevin Crappiea!


gee the pitcher i said ryan would pursue and sign as our inning eating ace

#145 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

And if the Twins do that, I'll be the first in line with a torch and pitchfork in hand. But until that happens, I'm not going to speculate wildly. The drop in payroll after 2011 was a given; the team went from receiving revenue sharing to paying into the system, a swing of thirty million dollars.

and they still pocketed 26 million in profits

#146 jharaldson

jharaldson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 326 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:53 PM

I just posted an article on this last night at Knuckleballs (and re-posted here at TD this morning). Absent another Major League signing, the Twins currently appear to have about $79,600,000 committed for 2013 (and this includes the $5.5 million they owe Nick Blackburn).


Something else that supports a hard $80 million salary cap is that the Correia signing had $500,000 deferred into 2014 (2013-$4.5,2014-$5.5). Given we are $400,000 under $80 million this appears to have been done to stay under that number.

#147 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,483 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

I think it's awesome how people complain that the Twins don't spend enough in one thread and then complain about how ridiculous a player's new contract is in another.

I'm completely unimpressed with Corriea and Pelfrey and would have liked other relatively cheap options but there weren't many good options available and they got a lot of money. Here are the 10+M/yr FA's off the top of my head. there's spending and there's spending only for the sake of spending.

Marcum - ?
Guthrie - 3/25 - almost 10M/yr and he's not that good
Dempster - 2/26.5
Jackson - 4/52
Sanchez 5/80
Greinke - 6/147.5

Haren obviously signed a below market one year contract with a team of his choice so he wasn't an option unless of the Twins traded for his option with the Angels.

#148 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

I think it's awesome how people complain that the Twins don't spend enough in one thread and then complain about how ridiculous a player's new contract is in another.

I'm completely unimpressed with Corriea and Pelfrey and would have liked other relatively cheap options but there weren't many good options available and they got a lot of money. Here are the 10+M/yr FA's off the top of my head. there's spending and there's spending only for the sake of spending.

Marcum - ?
Guthrie - 3/25 - almost 10M/yr and he's not that good
Dempster - 2/26.5
Jackson - 4/52
Sanchez 5/80
Greinke - 6/147.5

Haren obviously signed a below market one year contract with a team of his choice so he wasn't an option unless of the Twins traded for his option with the Angels.


I think you're leaving out a few other options. For example:

Scott Baker $5.5 mil
Joe Blanton 2 yr/$15 mil
Scott Feldman $6 mil
Roberto Hernandez $3.25 mil
John Lannan $2.5 mil
Francisco Liriano 2 yr/$12.75 mil
Kyle Lohse - ?
Daisuke Matsuzaka - ?
Brandon McCarthy 2 yr/$15.5 mil
Brett Myers - ?
Carlos Villanueva 2 yr/$10 mil

Certainly all of these pitchers have various "warts". But the point is that there were... and remain... legitimate options better than Kevin Correia and Mike Pelfrey. And he should still have enough room to sign literally any one (and possibly two) of those that remain without threatening the Twins solvency.
I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

#149 edavis0308

edavis0308

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 576 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 12:52 AM

Unless Marcum is significantly injured, he ain't singing here. Though appreciated, redo accordingly.

#150 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 02:17 AM

In reference to our 2007 payroll being in the 71.4M. Inflation calculator says that equals 79.28M today. And that's just normal inflation...before considering how much MLB players' salary has increased.

So if payroll sits in the high 70s or even mid 80s this upcoming season, why did we need the new park again? Of course, I love the new park, but why was it needed?

#151 Highabove

Highabove

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 639 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 03:05 AM

Twins Fans who buy tickets pay Major Market prices. This is one reason payroll strikes a nerve with many of us.
If you pay some of the highest prices in Baseball, you expect a quality product in return.

#152 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,483 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 04:58 AM

I think you're leaving out a few other options. For example:


You're not raising payroll by going after <5M/yr guys. All signing those guys would do is reshuffle Correia and Pelfrey out of the backend (neither of which that I really like). If you want to raise payroll which is your complaint then you have to sign the high dollar guys. If I had my preference I would pick Dempster because if that contract doesn't work out then at least it's gone in two years. My first preference is Marcum though since indications are that he's not going to get more than 3 yrs and it won't be much above 10-12M/yr.

#153 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 646 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 06:37 AM

and they still pocketed 26 million in profits


That is not True. They had $26M in operating Revenue. Operating Revenue does NOT equal Profits.

#154 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,352 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 10:36 PM

That is not True. They had $26M in operating Revenue. Operating Revenue does NOT equal Profits.


dont feed troll.jpg