I just read this whole thread.
I had to stop half way through and make some popcorn.
hard to believe we're over 100 comments now!
Jump to content
Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:14 PM
If it isn't Roberts, it should have been Beresford (!!!!), but whatever.
Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:43 AM
Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:27 PM
Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:15 AM
Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:31 AM
Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:38 AM
Want to see a sample? Take a look at our 2013 Offseason Handbook and read last year's handbook.
Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:29 AM
Honestly, if there was an offseason this would be overkill, it's this one. The Twins have (1) $23.8 million coming off payroll from Opening Day last year, (2) $25 million in new revenue from the new national TV deal, and (3) opened 2013 with a payroll $31.45 million lower than two years prior, and we know for sure the payroll cap was $10-20 million higher last year than what we actually spent. Unless a plan just goes nuts with spending, it's not unrealistic to think Plan B could be, "Make the same moves but spend more money."
Assuming the plan is to offer Blueprints by each of the site founders, I would like to see them include one more thing: what is the fallback plan if some major assumptions fall through? For instance, with 20/20 hindsight, it looks like almost all the proposed free-agent acquisitions were based on very low estimates of what it would take to sign players, and if the aim was to keep within a certain budget, what would the blueprint become (in very general terms) if all the planned moves cost a total of $10M more than budgeted?
Hopefully it's not too late in the editorial process to add a paragraph with this kind of scenario-based thinking that a real GM has to go through.