Souhan: Postseason rewards brains over bucks

[Seth Stohs]

Jim Souhan today wrote a terrific article on payroll and postseason baseball. Astutely, he basically points out that they have nothing to do with each other. It's more about decisions made and depth acquired (through development or other:

 

 

 

The Twins are cheap. The Twins are misguided.

Even if both sentiments are true, they have nothing to do with winning in Major League Baseball in this century.

Baseball is no longer about the size of your wallet.

 

The thought that spending money is what is going to mean wins and post season success should be a thing of the past. I know it isn't, especially after reading comments in the Phil Miller STrib article yesterday.

 

Another point made that more people need to realize:

 

 

The Twins aren’t losing because Mauer makes $23 million a year. They’re losing because they failed to develop starting pitching or make intelligent trades for a handful of years.

 

[Mike Sixel]

UH, duh.

 

but, that doesn't mean being cheap is a good idea. No one ever mentions the bad teams with low payrolls proving that low payrolls means losing...

 

None of this "proves" anything, other than if you stink at developing players, you aren't likely to be good. That's like, the sky is blue stuff. It also ignores that success of the Dodgers and Yankees and Red Sox and others success in recent years. It is about spending what you spend wisely. Not on Bartlett, Guerrier, Kubel, Pelfrey......

[Otto von Ballpark]

The lesson I take from this postseason: I am seeing a few disappointing teams occasionally hang close in a game, but ultimately look pretty listless and get blown out of the series.  It's not fun.  And that's what we saw from the Twins for SIX consecutive postseason series, spanning 8 years.  Ugh.

[USAFChief]

A couple thoughts...

 

KC making the playoffs is not an argument against payroll, unless "once in 29 years" is your goal.

 

Every team left in the playoffs--including KC--has a higher payroll than the 2104 Twins.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The thought that spending money is what is going to mean wins and post season success should be a thing of the past. I know it isn't, especially after reading comments in the Phil Miller STrib article yesterday.

Hasn't the postseason been thought to be a bit of a crapshoot for awhile now?  Maybe Strib commenters don't realize that (or Strib columnists ), but I think reasoned observers of the game know it.

 

The issue is usually ability to get to the postseason.  In 2014, 17 teams finished within 10 games of a wild card (shown on the B-Ref home page).  13 of them were in the top 17 payrolls; of the 4 high payroll teams that didn't make it in 2014, 2 of them made the playoffs in 2013, and the other two made the playoffs 3 straight times before 2013 and 5 straight times before 2012, respectively.

 

Only four 2014 playoff teams came from the bottom 13 payrolls (and only 2 in the bottom 9, where the Twins resided).

 

But the other thing is, the #17 payroll was right around $100 mil.  MLB imposes no artificial tax or penalty on payrolls that size or even up to a whopping $189 million.  And judging by history and available numbers, every MLB franchise could support a $100 million payroll if it wanted.  So much of the remaining payroll disparity is largely self-imposed.  So a low payroll is a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Every team left in the playoffs--including KC--has a higher payroll than the 2104 Twins.

To be fair, the 2104 Twins payroll will be lower due to deflation as a result of World War III.  

[Mike Sixel]

But one year and one team and one outcome, those are the data points used to show a trend!

[Seth Stohs]

None of this "proves" anything, other than if you stink at developing players, you aren't likely to be good. That's like, the sky is blue stuff. 

 

But that's the key. Developing players is the key...

[Mike Sixel]

But that's the key. Developing players is the key...

 

Who has argued against that? No one, ever.

 

Developing players =/= you cannot also spend money wisely. That seems to be the major disconnect here. Somehow, some people, are arguing against spending money if you don't draft and develop well. That is, imo, 100% backward. If you stink at developing players, you might want to buy some FAs.

[USAFChief]

But that's the key. Developing players is the key...

So are you arguing for firing Terry Ryan?

 

He hasn't developed enough players to avoid losing 90 games since his return.

[TheLeviathan]

You have to develop players and then effectively supplement them.  Sometimes that supplementing comes in trades and sometimes in FA.  KC, Balt, SF, and STL have all done demonstrated a far superior model of this than this team has for some time.

[Seth Stohs]

So are you arguing for firing Terry Ryan?

 

He hasn't developed enough players to avoid losing 90 games since his return.

 

Not necessarily, but I think it's fair to say that his long term (or even short-term - say, 2-3 years) will be completely determined by having this core of young players come up and be successful and win. Like the Royals, you have to have a core to supplement, and right now, the Twins (hopefully) next core is just getting their feet wet now. I don't know that there are pieces available in free agency that are worth it this year. Maybe there will be next year when you have a better sense of what the needs will be.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't know that there are pieces available in free agency that are worth it this year. Maybe there will be next year when you have a better sense of what the needs will be.

We've needed starting pitching for the last 3 years.  Outfielders too.

 

In my opinion, this is the wrong way to look at free agency.  Signing FA for need is almost as bad a drafting for need.  Outside of avoiding obvious, immediate position conflict (i.e. signing Cano when you have Pedroia), you should pursue the best players available based on your scouting, valuations, and available resources.

[Seth Stohs]

As Parker wrote today, the Twins obvious need on the offense short-term, at least, is in Left Field. I have no problem with them going out and getting a left fielder.

 

If they want to go out and get starting pitching. Great! I'd love to see Lester or Scherzer come to the Twins. If they go after Masterson, fine, he's a good reclamation guy on a one-year make-good deal. But, if they sign a starting pitcher in free agency (the previous three mentioned, or another that they pay good money to), then we have to be OK with Alex Meyer starting the season in Rochester, which he might anyway.

[bird]

A couple thoughts...

 

KC making the playoffs is not an argument against payroll, unless "once in 29 years" is your goal.

 

Every team left in the playoffs--including KC--has a higher payroll than the 2104 Twins.

Um, Chief, how do you know what the 2104 payroll will be?

 

I'd also suggest here that every team you mention has a higher payroll than the Twins because they've reached a point where they are a playoff-caliber team.

 

Souhan is taking a narrow look for sure, but so is anyone who isn't correlating the talent and the number of years that talent has been in place to the payroll number.

[ashbury]

Signing FA for need is almost as bad a drafting for need. 

How do you propose that needs be addressed, when they arise?  Only by trades?

[Willihammer]

 

Fact: Of the 12 major league baseball teams with the highest payrolls, only five made it to the playoffs, and only one — the Giants, who rank sixth — made the final four.

A success rate of 42% vs. 27% overall.

 

The season rewards bucks and brains.

 

The postseason rewards bucks, brains, and luck.

[bird]

Who has argued against that? No one, ever.

 

Developing players =/= you cannot also spend money wisely. That seems to be the major disconnect here. Somehow, some people, are arguing against spending money if you don't draft and develop well. That is, imo, 100% backward. If you stink at developing players, you might want to buy some FAs.

Here we go again. The Twins stink at developing players.

 

Want proof? Ryan hasn't failed to lose 90 games during his return.

 

If one continues, thread after thread, to insist that this fact is the sole burden of evidence that the Twins stink at developing players, then one is right.

 

You win, mike wants wins. The Twins absolutely, positively stink at developing players. Because four straight years of 90+ losses.

 

You're absolutely on the nut about this.

[Mike Sixel]

Um, Chief, how do you know what the 2104 payroll will be?

 

I'd also suggest here that every team you mention has a higher payroll than the Twins because they've reached a point where they are a playoff-caliber team.

 

Souhan is taking a narrow look for sure, but so is anyone who isn't correlating the talent and the number of years that talent has been in place to the payroll number.

 

KC was not a playoff caliber team 2 years ago, when it added to its payroll.....it only became one when it did add to its payroll, by "stupidly" trading a highly ranked prospect and another for two proven MLB players. That's why they are playoff caliber, they added salary and players. You have cause and effect 100% backward.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But, if they sign a starting pitcher in free agency (the previous three mentioned, or another that they pay good money to), then we have to be OK with Alex Meyer starting the season in Rochester, which he might anyway.

I am actually OK with that, assuming the 5 starters are there by merit and we're not afraid to make a change (or best case, spin off an extra asset).  Better to start with too many options than not enough.

 

My objections to Meyer staying in AAA for the duration of 2014 were more about who was getting the looks/experience in MLB ahead of him.

[Mike Sixel]

I never said, in that post, that they stink at developing players, actually. I said if a team stinks at it, they should supplement with FAs.

 

I probably should have been more precise, and said, if you've failed to develop players (see the SP here) for several years, you should acquire some from outside the org. Actually, TR has largely done that, I would guess in acknowledgement of the lack of internal options. He hasn't been as successful as he or anyone else wants, but he has tried. 

 

I'd argue that the fact that 80% of the rotation was developed outside of MN actually kind of proves my point.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

A success rate of 42% vs. 27% overall.

 

The season rewards bucks and brains.

 

The postseason rewards bucks, brains, and luck.

Not sure where they get that payroll data.  I see 6 of the top 11 payroll teams in the playoffs, versus only 4 of the bottom 19.

 

And 4 of the teams that missed the 2014 playoffs despite a top-11 payroll, made the playoffs between 2011-2013 and won pennant(s) between 2009-2013.

[jay]

Spend an unprecedented amount for your org in free agency on your biggest need like last offseason?

Fans are mad every signing didn't pan out in year 1 and also now expect you to do this or more every year.

 

Stretch your payroll when you think you still have a chance to contend like in 2011?

Fans now base their expectations for your payroll on that and it should grow every year from there.

 

Admit that payroll might not grow next year because you're trying to develop your young players so you can contend again?

Fans are disgusted that you're lining the owners pockets with money and refusing to do what it takes it to win.

 

I could go on and on...

It's truly a no-win argument.

[USAFChief]

Spend an unprecedented amount for your org in free agency on your biggest need like last offseason?

Fans are mad every signing didn't pan out in year 1 and also now expect you to do this or more every year.

Stretch your payroll when you think you still have a chance to contend like in 2011?

Fans now base their expectations for your payroll on that and it should grow every year from there.

Admit that payroll might not grow next year because you're trying to develop your young players so you can contend again?

Fans are disgusted that you're lining the owners pockets with money and refusing to do what it takes it to win.

I could go on and on...

It's truly a no-win argument.

1. "Unprecedented" is a rather backhanded compliment in the case of the Twins.

 

2. Well run teams do look to add talent in most, if not every year through free agency. Spread out the contracts in terms of length and dollars and you have money being freed up on a regular basis.

 

3. There isn't any objective way to look at 2011, using the Twins own statements and the best available revenue estimates, and contend the Twins "stretched" payroll in 2011. That's simply not true.

 

4. I've already posted I would be fine with DSP stating publicly they're banking excess revenues to put toward future needs. I can't speak for all "fans" (and you probably shouldn't either...) but I'm going to need to see that happen before I give them the benefit of the doubt.

[bird]

KC was not a playoff caliber team 2 years ago, when it added to its payroll.....it only became one when it did add to its payroll, by "stupidly" trading a highly ranked prospect and another for two proven MLB players. That's why they are playoff caliber, they added salary and players. You have cause and effect 100% backward.

 

The Royals became a playoff caliber team because they accumulated one elite prospect after another via the Rule 5 draft. At the beginning of the season when you suggested in so many words (yes, mike, you did) that KC was a poor model to emulate, I was saying the opposite and predicting they might give the Tigers a run for their FA money. The last trade for Shields and Davis was a great success, one that put them over the top, and it's precisely the type of move I hope and think the Twins will make in a year or two when THEY are on the cusp. 

 

 The Shields trade is what "caused" them to transform into a playoff caliber team? No way. They are in the WS because they ignored impatient fans and built primary and with great perseverance through th draft.

[Thrylos]

FWIW, Souhan is doing a bit of revisionist history here:

 

 

The best two free-agent signings in franchise history were Jack Morris and Chili Davis, who helped them win the 1991 World Series. Both were cheap, and both were signed only after more-expensive options (such as Mike Boddicker and Kirk Gibson) snubbed the Twins and signed elsewhere.

 

in 1991 Jack Morris was the highest paid pitcher in baseball.   Souhan should know that...

 

In spirit I agree:  If you develop players well, have balance and a plan on building a competitive team, you don't need a whole bunch of money but there is the other side of that coin: If you don't do that, and the Twins' FO has not done that recently, spending $ can fix it sometimes.  Ask the Marlins and the Yankees dynasty.

[bird]

I never said, in that post, that they stink at developing players, actually. I said if a team stinks at it, they should supplement with FAs.

 

I probably should have been more precise, and said, if you've failed to develop players (see the SP here) for several years, you should acquire some from outside the org. Actually, TR has largely done that, I would guess in acknowledgement of the lack of internal options. He hasn't been as successful as he or anyone else wants, but he has tried. 

 

I'd argue that the fact that 80% of the rotation was developed outside of MN actually kind of proves my point.....

Geez, my bad again. I guess, since you were specifically discussing the Twins, that it was more than a random hypothetical statement about just any old team.

[jay]

2. Well run teams do look to add talent in most, if not every year through free agency. Spread out the contracts in terms of length and dollars and you have money being freed up on a regular basis.

One could make a pretty good case that's exactly what the Twins do...

I think the problem here is that it's not at the magnitude you'd like.

 

3. There isn't any objective way to look at 2011, using the Twins own statements and the best available revenue estimates, and contend the Twins "stretched" payroll in 2011. That's simply not true.

The Twins' own statements DO say that. If it's objectivity you're after, I'd ask for that in both directions... which would be great since I'm usually the one stuck making that case. It also wouldn't include an overly simplistic revenue to payroll model.

[USAFChief]

It also wouldn't include an overly simplistic revenue to payroll model.

I'm not sure what this even means. The Twins themselves have said, over and over and over, what they will spend. There's nothing terribly complicated to over simplify.

 

From the recent STrib article:

 

"Team President Dave St. Peter said last week that the Twins will stick to their longtime policy of devoting roughly half of the team’s gross revenues to player payroll"

[USAFChief]

Do you really believe what you just typed? Please, mike. The Royals became a playoff caliber team because they accumulated one elite prospect after another via the Rule 5 draft. At the beginning of the season when you suggested in so many words (yes, mike, you did) that KC was a poor model to emulate, I was saying the opposite and predicting they might give the Tigers a run for their FA money. The last trade for Shields and Davis was a great success, one that put them over the top, and it's precisely the type of move I hope and think the Twins will make in a year or two when THEY are on the cusp.

 

The Shields trade is what "caused" them to transform into a playoff caliber team? No way. They are in the WS because they ignored impatient fans and built primary and with great perseverance through th draft.

Not to speak for Mike, but I believe what he typed.

 

Mike said the Royals weren't a playoff caliber team when they made that trade. They had just finished a 72-90 season, minus 72 run differential.

 

I think Mike was mostly correct.

 

I would say, though, that they also gambled on the players in their system also maturing and developing. A leap of faith, if you will, rather than waiting till they were sure before adding.