Don't expect increase in payroll

[tobi0040]

Hypothetically, if the Twins end up playing this offseason off of PR motives, what will their goals regarding payroll be?  Instinct says the right PR move is to increase payroll if they were truly trying to appease the fans and show them they want to win.

 

However they just fired their manager and everyone is pointing fingers at themselves saying they didn't do enough to give him talent.  Perhaps getting a new manager and giving HIM an increased payroll actually looks like they screwed Gardy over.  Of course this course of action has the added bonus of not spending money.

 

Just a though.  Anyway my prediction is the payroll sits at $90 million as the front office will make some knee jerk reactions to try to course correct.  I do not predict the $90 million will be well spent and I do predict that more prospects will be blocked. 

 

I agree and think Gardy was hung out to dry to an extent.  Not getting him talent was part of it and not acknowledging a rebuild was another key piece. Now they look at him and say...you lost 90 games again!

 

Having said that, I was glad to see him go because I don't think he is the right choice moving forward.

[KGB]

The Twins are not close to a playoff team, so spending money to appease the fan base and block prospects is a really bad decision.  They will never compete as a high payroll team, so they need to  develop talent and fill spots for veterans.  But because they are so slow in bringing up pitchers, it impossible to see if the prospects are for real.

 

Payroll should take a step backward so prospects have a chance to develop.  Once you make a good base of prospect, then you can make a big move in the FA market and lockup your young talent.

[Mike Sixel]

Which prospect is going to be blocked in LF or CF? Which SP is being blocked at the beginning of next year? None, unless you think they are changing their mind on Meyer.

 

There are plenty of holes in AA, AAA, MLB to add FAs to this team.

[Rosterman]

The Twins are not close to a playoff team, so spending money to appease the fan base and block prospects is a really bad decision.  They will never compete as a high payroll team, so they need to  develop talent and fill spots for veterans.  But because they are so slow in bringing up pitchers, it impossible to see if the prospects are for real.

 

Payroll should take a step backward so prospects have a chance to develop.  Once you make a good base of prospect, then you can make a big move in the FA market and lockup your young talent.

Can we field a team of prospects in 2015. Let's say, on the outside, we get 15 wins each from Nolasco and Hughes. We get another dozen from Gibson. Maybe May chimes in with 10. The 5th spot gives up 10 somehow between Pelfrey and Company. That looks pretty good, if we are fielding a team of Suzucki, Mauer, Dozier, Santana, Plouffe, Arcia, Hicks, someone, Vargas. Maybe Mauer returns and hits .320. Maybe Arcia, Vargas, Dozier, Plouffe all hit 30 homers. It's still not a great team, possibly a better one than alst season, but it also depends on what other teams in the division do in the offseason.

 

We need to put butts in the seats. The Twins were quite lucky in 2014. The game attendance figures were often out of proportion as many ticket holders didn't show up, period. Rating are also down. 

 

You could field the above team if you ahd some prospects like Sano, Buxton and Meyer making appearances for sure, and IF they do perform above Hicks levels. But you don't have that guarantee and it looks like any of those three marketable prospects won't show up on the radar until mid-season or so, when you could be jettisoning free agent blockage, if you get some free agents.

 

And free agents don't spell s-u-c-c-e-s-s, they spell marketing, hopes based on prior major league performance. You may get lucky 1 of 3 years (see Willingham, even Cuddy in Colorado). You might see Hughes dropoff and be Nolasco in 2016 (while Nolasco becomes Hughes) and you are glad you didn't sign him to a contract extension (which I doubt the Twins will) for the next 3-4 years instead of the current 2.

 

It is a fun game with lots of real money spent, and you can't predict the results, really can't. And then everything has to come together. And a budget can be a budget. But if you are able to spend x-amount of money, why not do it, yes, as carefully and smartly as you can...because you have that money to spend with the hopes of putting butts in the seats, selling concession, getting viewers and listeners, and building towards a future. You are going to make some mistakes, hopefully have a little extra working capital mid-season to correct those mistakes even temporarily. But to have the resources and NOT use them, i.e. "we didn't do enough for Gardy, so he lost bigtime and lost his job" is not what should be said. We should be saying "Ryan gave Gardy and Co. a topflight rotation, a good mix of players on the field, able backups in the minor system, and somehow the rotation sucked, the bullpen burned out, hitters failed to perform, and everyone forgot how to field and run the Twins way...what happened." Everyone gets fired. Upper management has to figure out what went wrong and correct it.

[KGB]

What's better marketing - Buxon, Sano, Meyer & possible Berrios or Ervin Santana, Brandon McCarthy and the hard hitting .230 available outfielders of Peter Bourjos and Colby Ramus?

 

I keep hearing we have the #1 minor league organization, but we don't have any major league talent?  What was Danny Santana ranking last year?  If we had signed any kind of capable backup center fielder, he never would have gotten 400 AB's, probably wouldn't have seen a call up until September if he was lucky.  Is a 23 year old Eddie Rosario in the same place as Santana?  If we could sign Yasmanny Tomas, I'm all in, but it not going to happen.  At a certain point, it's not about money (ask Phil Hughes), it's about winning. So until we can start to show signs of life, no big time free agent is going to sign here.  So do you want more of Pelfrey, Corriea and Nolasco?

 

It time to start building something and giving it a chance to develop in the major. 

[Kwak]

My take is different than most--the plan was to put a decent team on the field, sell TF with all of the pretty limestone, outdoor baseball, Joe Mauer and "Yah never know!".  The people would come streaming in, emptying their wallets dreaming "what if?"  Most did not believe the team was as bankrupt as their marketing pitches until the end of the 2013 season.  Ryan and Gardenhire made many promises to the execs, received a huge (by Twins standards FA budget), and put their heads together to reconstruct the roster.  I'm not sure if they were convinced they had "solved the problem or not" after Spring training but by September (maybe August) I think they knew the answer. 

 

I don't believe the execs are committed to building a championship team, but simply provide sufficient entertainment consistent with a middle-of-the road budget.  The stadium was not built to enrich BB players, but rather the owners.

[LaBombo]

What's better marketing - Buxon, Sano, Meyer & possible Berrios or Ervin Santana, Brandon McCarthy and the hard hitting .230 available outfielders of Peter Bourjos and Colby Ramus?

 

I keep hearing we have the #1 minor league organization, but we don't have any major league talent?  What was Danny Santana ranking last year?  If we had signed any kind of capable backup center fielder, he never would have gotten 400 AB's, probably wouldn't have seen a call up until September if he was lucky.  Is a 23 year old Eddie Rosario in the same place as Santana?  If we could sign Yasmanny Tomas, I'm all in, but it not going to happen.  At a certain point, it's not about money (ask Phil Hughes), it's about winning. So until we can start to show signs of life, no big time free agent is going to sign here.  So do you want more of Pelfrey, Corriea and Nolasco?

 

It time to start building something and giving it a chance to develop in the major. 

While I agree with the general idea of rebuilding as a primary goal, as opposed to going all in on avoiding 90 losses (or even a losing season), there's a problem with this scenario.  Sano didn't play this season, Buxton struggled through just over a hundred plate appearances in high A, and Berrios pitched 43 innings above A ball.

 

The painful 2013 of Aaron Hicks is a cautionary tail of what happens when a franchise enters a season with a prospect and one other option as the only realistic options for a position.  Although it was nice to see some dead wood trimmed this season (Willi, Correia, etc) the Twins need to make sure they have some competent options in case the prospects aren't ready.

 

They should be affordable enough to be able to more or less discard if/when the prospects are ready, but avoiding a Colby Rasmus now is an open invitation to ending up with 300 plate appearances for a Clete Thomas later.

[bird]

 

 

I'd like to jump on this a sec. I understand the desire of some (even if I don't agree) to keep payrol at 52%. That said, I think I can safely say that we have no idea if that payroll number is at 35%. This, to me at least, hilights a lot of my frustrations with this debate. What we do know is that revenues have dropped due to lower attendance and that the Twins now get a comp pick which could be b/c of this or simply a change in their revenue percentage in relation to the league, or both.

 

I think it's a very dangerous precendent for us to determine what exactly that number should be when we only have educated guesses as to what the revenue actually is.

I agree with this. I think another dangerous precedent we've set as a community is to discuss this 52% thing as if it's some hard and fast annual rule. I get it that the Twins brought it up. It's clear that some people, rightly or wrongly, have come to expect that it should be happening every year. I get the frustration that spending less causes. It's entirely understandable that maybe most of us don't believe the franchise will ever over-spend its payroll budget should that situation present itself. Everyone is entitled to their own values on the subject. No doubt, the Twins have bungled the payroll question with us. They may be guilty (or not) of implying certain promises during stadium negotiations. Certainly they failed to do anything remotely clever to manage our expectations. And now, DSP comes out with another stupid statement, and it's understandable why some are hell-bent on taking it at face value, and for those people, it may be hard to understand why others don't. It's a disturbing comment, clearly. The most defining historic characteristic of this organization, in my opinion, is that it is horrendous at PR, and to me it's no surprise that St. Peter surfaced from that part of the business.

 

Here's the deal: regardless of "what side" of the payroll issue you're on, or how you feel about your county commissioners and the Pohlad family regarding the stadium decision, or what your take is on the issues I've mentioned, It's time to move on, isn't it?

 

Let's see what happens going forward. Let's stop parsing quotes and trying to read between the lines of every comment that gets made and see what happens here. Maybe guys like me will be disappointed, or maybe the next guy will be pleasantly surprised, but let's put the tar and feathers aside for now and see what happens going forward.

[Mike Sixel]

Who said every year? How about half the years as a start?

 

And while Buxton and Sano would sell tickets, maybe, they are not ready.

[nicksaviking]

Which prospect is going to be blocked in LF or CF? Which SP is being blocked at the beginning of next year? None, unless you think they are changing their mind on Meyer.

 

There are plenty of holes in AA, AAA, MLB to add FAs to this team.

 

Right but only in the OF and a starting pitcher and I don't want any replacement level OF or starting pitchers.  Last year the Twins had holes at CF, SS and starting pitching.  They were agressive on the pitching front (Nolasco wasn't a good fit but I appreciated the effort) then completely ignored CF and SS and instead signed a catcher and chased a DH who they later signed in June.  I have real doubts that this team signs a corner OF who we all don't issue a collective groan about since there are only a couple avilable and there are no good CF available. 

[Mike Sixel]

The post I was responding to basically said "never sign FAs in a rebuild, because you are automatically blocking someone". I don't agree.

 

There is no replacements level LF in AA, AAA, or the MLB roster right now. A 1 or 2 WAR player would be an improvement......

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

This is certainly interesting ... The Twins are trying to schdule a workout with Yasmany Tomas?!?! Signing Tomas would definitely increase the payroll, he's expected to get a contract with a total value over $100MM

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/al-central-notes-anderson-tomas-sox-cabrera.html

[Mike Sixel]

Zero chance. They were "front runners", "interested", "players" in all the recent Cubans, except for the part where they actually spend the most......plus, Tomas is not as good as the last three, from what I hear, and will be paid more because the last few have been so good......I don't see it.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I would say it's a 5% chance.

 

The Twins did not go as far as scheduling a private workout with any of the other guys. He's expected to make more because he's younger than the other guys.

[Mike Sixel]

I would say it's a 5% chance.

 

The Twins did not go as far as scheduling a private workout with any of the other guys. He's expected to make more because he's younger than the other guys.

 

But he's not as good, either. he's expected to make more because the last few guys worked out so well. this is what happens at the end of the market inefficiency cycle......formerly low cost items become high cost items when followers finally figure out it works (but then, it has lost its value, because now you are over paying).

 

Given all that, it is MORE likely the Twins mess up and overpay this guy, having passed on the previous market inefficiency, IMO.

[JB_Iowa]

For me the problem with 52% is that it basically acts as a cap. I have no problems with being 10% or so below that if we are playing prospects and developing talent. But I also want them to be willing to go 10% or so above that to acquire the final missing piece for a good team (if we ever get back there) but thus far I have never seen anything from the Twins saying that they are willing to carry "savings" forward and they have not done anything that would make me confident that they would ever go that far "above and beyond".

[tobi0040]

 

But he's not as good, either. he's expected to make more because the last few guys worked out so well. this is what happens at the end of the market inefficiency cycle......formerly low cost items become high cost items when followers finally figure out it works (but then, it has lost its value, because now you are over paying).

 

Given all that, it is MORE likely the Twins mess up and overpay this guy, having passed on the previous market inefficiency, IMO.

 

 

This is a good write up and comparison between Tomas and other Cubans.  The skinny, his numbers in Cuba are nowhere near Abreau's numbers.  Scouts believe Tomas as raw 70 power but will strike out a ton.  He was always near the top in the league in K's and this writer thinks it is possible he could be in the 30% range in the big leagues. 

His numbers in Cuba resemble Cespedes at the same age, who I think is wildly over-rated.  His last two yeas he has had an OPS of .737 and .751.  Pretty average for a LF and if Tomas's ceiling is in this range he is not worthy of the contract that is likely to be doled out (7-70 or so). 

 

http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/yasmani-tomas-cuban-stats.html

[jay]

For me the problem with 52% is that it basically acts as a cap. I have no problems with being 10% or so below that if we are playing prospects and developing talent. But I also want them to be willing to go 10% or so above that to acquire the final missing piece for a good team (if we ever get back there) but thus far I have never seen anything from the Twins saying that they are willing to carry "savings" forward and they have not done anything that would make me confident that they would ever go that far "above and beyond".

 

The front office quotes from 2011 make it sound like they went above and beyond.

[tobi0040]

The front office quotes from 2011 make it sound like they went above and beyond.

 

#credibility issue

[jay]

#credibility issue

 

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory!

 

What's more likely?

The Twins publicly tell us they have a payroll % target but then proceed to lie and deceive us about it while consistently and significantly underspending what it should be

OR

We aren't accurately arriving at the same number

 

Option B seems a bit more reasonable to me.  When you look at how the Twins try to operate as an organization, shady and liars doesn't exactly come to mind for me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But I also want them to be willing to go 10% or so above that to acquire the final missing piece for a good team

I'd take it one step further -- I'd like them to be willing to go 10% above (or risk going 10% above in the future) if they identify the "right guy" available in FA (or even trade), even if it's not the "final piece" or the rest of the team may not be good yet.

 

Otherwise, you can pretty much argue against FA spending anytime (either we're not good/close yet, or if we are, we have to worry about paying Buxton/Sano/etc.).

 

 

And that's not a mandate to spend that money now or any particular time -- it's just giving TR's apparent baseball acumen another avenue to potentially add top-level talent to our favorite ballclub.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory!

 

What's more likely?

The Twins publicly tell us they have a payroll % target but then proceed to lie and deceive us about it while consistently and significantly underspending what it should be

OR

We aren't accurately arriving at the same number

 

Option B seems a bit more reasonable to me.  When you look at how the Twins try to operate as an organization, shady and liars doesn't exactly come to mind for me.

I don't think they are lying and deceiving, but I think they have a well-established conservative (some would say "cheap") approach to budgeting.  Some thought that was just the Metrodome, and that was certainly a factor, but I think the root cause goes deeper than stadiums.

 

But everyone knows this conservative approach to budgeting doesn't necessarily play well with the public, especially when you are in a new taxpayer funded stadium, so they say some weird things at times to try glossing over that fact, emphasizing other aspects of their approach, and de-emphasizing their MLB payroll and FA pursuits.

[tobi0040]

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory!

 

What's more likely?

The Twins publicly tell us they have a payroll % target but then proceed to lie and deceive us about it while consistently and significantly underspending what it should be

OR

We aren't accurately arriving at the same number

 

Option B seems a bit more reasonable to me.  When you look at how the Twins try to operate as an organization, shady and liars doesn't exactly come to mind for me.

 

Conspiracy is not what I am saying. 

 

But I do think the Twins are very sensitive of the perception that they are cheap, especially since they got a new stadium and payroll has dipped.

 

Just think of how they have went out of their way to publicize how many free agents, MLB and international they "were in on" and found "guys just won't take our money".  Doesn't that strike you as very odd?

 

I think the Twins would also publicize if they went over 52% by a dollar, which they might have in year one. They were close.   But they would not tell us it was by a dollar. They would say they went over and let us speculate how much. And I think in down years they would question the accuracy of the revenue number when everyone has them at 35%, even if the real number is 36%. 

 

You keep coming back to the grey nature of the analysis or the fact that these are estimates.  Do you really think we are north of 40%?  For me, it doesn't matter if it is 35, 37, or 39.  But to be within 10% of the magical 52%, the revenue estimate would have to short by 10's of millions. Finally, isn't the number as likely to be too low as too high?

[Mike Sixel]

Not to mention they say stuff like "signed 100MM in FAs", when that is spread over 4 years, so, yes, I do think that they try to mislead the public.

 

"we expect to play competitive games in September", when we all knew they wouldn't that year. Are they lying, or incompetent? I'd rather they be lying than be that wrong.

[tobi0040]

Not to mention they say stuff like "signed 100MM in FAs", when that is spread over 4 years, so, yes, I do think that they try to mislead the public.

 

"we expect to play competitive games in September", when we all knew they wouldn't that year. Are they lying, or incompetent? I'd rather they be lying than be that wrong.

 

Or they talk about the huge investment they made in Willingham, when he simply replaced a larger contract that expired.   Or every offseason the owner claims Terry can do anything he wants to improve the club and does not have a budget. Or when they said they were "Going to sign a pretty darn good pitcher" and signed only Kevin Corriea.

 

We really could go on and on.  This front office has a credibility issue, no doubt.

[jay]

 

But I do think the Twins are very sensitive of the perception that they are cheap, especially since they got a new stadium and payroll has dipped.

 

Just think of how they have went out of their way to publicize how many free agents, MLB and international they "were in on" and found "guys just won't take our money".  Doesn't that strike you as very odd?

 

I mostly agree with this. However, the argument of the recent past was "the Twins are never even talking to these guys". The new argument is "the Twins aren't signing enough of these guys". That's already different. When they blow their previous organizational FA expenditures out of the water in an offseason, that's enough for me to think that things are in fact a bit different than they were in the past. Obviously though, not different enough for some people.

 

 

 

Do you really think we are north of 40%? For me, it doesn't matter if it is 35, 37, or 39. But to be within 10% of the magical 52%, the revenue estimate would have to off by 10's of millions.

 

 

I do.

 

Where I think the logic fails is in assuming that you have the right numerator and denominator when nothing in the history of their payroll even suggests those numbers align.  Adhering to the thought that the MLB payroll number published by Deadspin, USA Today, etc should be .52*(Forbes revenue estimate) would lead you to believe that the Twins haven't fulfilled what they say even one single time. Does that seem realistic?

 

Forbes publishes a number for player expenses, not just revenue.  Take a look at what they show:

Year Player Expenses Revenue Ratio

2005 69 102 68%

2006 73 114 64%

2007 76 131 58%

2008 81 149 54%

2009 80 158 51%

2010 83 162 51%

2011 112 213 53%

2012 121 213 57%

2013 122 214 57%

2014 97 221 44%

Average 91.4 167.7 56%

 

 

 

It seems clear they entered 2014 on the low-end of their range and had flexibility to add payroll based on both their quotes and actions, hence the ability to add Morales.  I do think they entered the year short of "52%", but nowhere near almost $30M short as would be suggested by your method.

[USAFChief]

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory!

 

What's more likely?

The Twins publicly tell us they have a payroll % target but then proceed to lie and deceive us about it while consistently and significantly underspending what it should be

OR

We aren't accurately arriving at the same number

 

Option B seems a bit more reasonable to me.  When you look at how the Twins try to operate as an organization, shady and liars doesn't exactly come to mind for me.

Well, they could open up their books to a a public, independent audit, and remove much doubt.

 

I don't think they'll do that though, leaving all of us to use the best information we have to make our judgement.

[tobi0040]

I mostly agree with this. However, the argument of the recent past was "the Twins are never even talking to these guys". The new argument is "the Twins aren't signing enough of these guys". That's already different. When they blow their previous organizational FA expenditures out of the water in an offseason, that's enough for me to think that things are in fact a bit different than they were in the past. Obviously though, not different enough for some people.

 

 

 

 

 

I do.

 

Where I think the logic fails is in assuming that you have the right numerator and denominator when nothing in the history of their payroll even suggests those numbers align.  Adhering to the thought that the MLB payroll number published by Deadspin, USA Today, etc should be .52*(Forbes revenue estimate) would lead you to believe that the Twins haven't fulfilled what they say even one single time. Does that seem realistic?

 

Forbes publishes a number for player expenses, not just revenue.  Take a look at what they show:

Year Player Expenses Revenue Ratio

2005 69 102 68%

2006 73 114 64%

2007 76 131 58%

2008 81 149 54%

2009 80 158 51%

2010 83 162 51%

2011 112 213 53%

2012 121 213 57%

2013 122 214 57%

2014 97 221 44%

Average 91.4 167.7 56%

 

 

 

It seems clear they entered 2014 on the low-end of their range and had flexibility to add payroll based on both their quotes and actions, hence the ability to add Morales.  I do think they entered the year short of "52%", but nowhere near almost $30M short as would be suggested by your method.

 

I think we are talking about two different sets of numbers.  Player expenses and MLB payroll are two different things. The first takes into account, I am guessing minor league salaries, bonuses paid to international free agents, probably your draft pool as well.  No?

 

When talking about "payroll", the Twins even acknowledge payroll is nowhere near $97M this year, $122M last year.

 

Here is a conversation with Terry Ryan in the context of a $100M payroll for 2012, not the $122M number you have. The conversation was in 2013.

 

http://www.twincities.com/ci_22132930/minnesota-twins-gm-terry-ryan-doesnt-want-top

[jay]

I think we are talking about two different sets of numbers.  Player expenses and MLB payroll are two different things. The first takes into account, I am guessing minor league salaries, bonuses paid to international free agents, probably your draft pool as well.  No?

 

I'm not sure.  I do know those Forbes numbers consistently aligns closer to the Twins' continued statements than your method.  It further emphasizes my point that we don't actually know how they calculate it.  Do you know which figure the Twins use when they talk about 50-52%? 

[tobi0040]

I mostly agree with this. However, the argument of the recent past was "the Twins are never even talking to these guys". The new argument is "the Twins aren't signing enough of these guys". That's already different. When they blow their previous organizational FA expenditures out of the water in an offseason, that's enough for me to think that things are in fact a bit different than they were in the past. Obviously though, not different enough for some people.

 

All the money they have went around bragging they have spent, has resulted in payroll to decline from $110M to in the $80's.   Last off-season they went around saying they spent $85M. That was on 2 3, and 4 year deas to three different starting pitchers. Paying a pitching $6M, $8M, and $11M a year for starting pitchers on the free agent market is not really a huge spend.

 

It was a record by Twins standards, but we are talking about a world where Scott Feldman signs for $9M a year.  Gil Meche for $11M.