Mackey: Are the Twins Spending Enough Money?

[dbminn]

mike wants wins: Yes, both major and minor league rosters.

 

Both the Cubs and Twins are loaded with prospects. That's how you build a team that's competitive for the long run. You can't rely on the success of one prospect but you can hit with many prospects. I think it's a toss-up between the Cubs and Twins.

 

The Twins have a much better distribution of prospects in terms of pitching/hitting, speed/power. The Cubs are loaded with power guys who have been striking out at tremendous rates in the minors. (Of course, Theo will probably spin a couple of these hitters for pitching).

 

Santana and Vargas outperformed all three of the Cubs call-ups last year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interesting that Mackey and several posters here have taken to criticizing "payroll whiners"... but no posters in this thread have, in fact, whined about payroll.  (There appears to be another thread for that. )

 

The more interesting comment by Mackey, quoted by Seth and debated here, is equating the Twins and Cubs strategies the past 3 years.

[Mike Sixel]

mike wants wins: Yes, both major and minor league rosters.

 

Both the Cubs and Twins are loaded with prospects. That's how you build a team that's competitive for the long run. You can't rely on the success of one prospect but you can hit with many prospects. I think it's a toss-up between the Cubs and Twins.

 

The Twins have a much better distribution of prospects in terms of pitching/hitting, speed/power. The Cubs are loaded with power guys who have been striking out at tremendous rates in the minors. (Of course, Theo will probably spin a couple of these hitters for pitching).

 

Santana and Vargas outperformed all three of the Cubs call-ups last year.

 

I'd take the Cubs. But, it's not a slam dunk. I just think they are slightly better set up right now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd take the Cubs. But, it's not a slam dunk. I just think they are slightly better set up right now.

I'd also take the Cubs. It's a tough decision that can be argued for either side if you're only looking at players but if you add in manager, market size, and payroll ceiling, it's the Cubs by a longshot.

[jay]

Interesting that Mackey and several posters here have taken to criticizing "payroll whiners"... but no posters in this thread have, in fact, whined about payroll.  (There appears to be another thread for that. )

 

The more interesting comment by Mackey, quoted by Seth and debated here, is equating the Twins and Cubs strategies the past 3 years.

 

I disagree.  Payroll and talent acquisition methods are pretty closely intertwined.  We can't criticize the Twins for not signing Cubans (or others) without recognizing there's a connection to payroll (and whining).

[Mike Sixel]

I guess I don't see how questioning their approach is whining.......they had the money to sign Cubans the last few years, and didn't. Suggesting that was a bad approach is whining how, exactly?

 

Passing on Santana last year, and signing Pelfrey instead, that's whining how?

 

I guess we could all just come on here and say what a genius this leadership team is every post.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

I disagree.  Payroll and talent acquisition methods are pretty closely intertwined.  We can't criticize the Twins for not signing Cubans (or others) without recognizing there's a connection to payroll (and whining).

Before Lester, the Cubs under Epstein hadn't signed or traded for anyone making significant sums.  Jackson got Nolasco money, Soler got 9 years $30 mil -- basically an early arb buyout contract.  Everybody else, MLB or international, was getting Nishioka-like commitments or less.  Heck, there was lots of speculation that Epstein and the Cubs were being too cheap until the Lester deal (and I guess the Montero trade).

 

Payroll is not a contrasting factor for the Cubs and Twins approaches from November 2011 through November 2014.

[DJL44]

Every GM should have a bad contract or trade. If you don't ever have a trade or signing turn out wrong then you aren't taking on enough risk.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Cubs payrolls 2012-2014 were 10% higher than the Twins, according to Cot's.  And over a third of that difference is due to signing Jackson a year earlier than we signed Nolasco.  Accounting for that, it was a difference of $7 mil per year.

 

And B-Ref showed them with notably less future payroll commitments than the Twins, at least before the Lester addition.

[jay]

Cubs payrolls 2012-2014 were 10% higher than the Twins, according to Cot's.  And over a third of that difference is due to signing Jackson a year earlier than we signed Nolasco.  Accounting for that, it was a difference of $7 mil per year.

 

Great.  Does that mean there is some similarity in the approach they took to rebuild, despite the Cubs capacity for significantly higher payrolls?

[Kwak]

"Are the Twins spending enough money"?  In order to answer that, I need to know what result is planned for said spending.  I believe the Hunter contract was simply a marketing  promotion to sell more season tickets. But the Santana signing was done "to keep up with the Joneses"--the others in the division were making moves to actually improve their team with the intent of winning more games.  The FO had to react--they actually had to spend to improve the on-field product.  The Twins were (and still are) a last-place team in a division that is not dominated by one (or two) major revenue producers that could overwhelm the rest in spending if they chose.  If the FO "stood-pat" they run the risk of being buried competitively and becoming little more than a "feeder team" to the res of MLB.  So, I say "good or them", the FO recognizd the situation and (re)acted.  How well will it work out?  IDK, we will have to wait and see.

[jay]

I guess I don't see how questioning their approach is whining.......they had the money to sign Cubans the last few years, and didn't. Suggesting that was a bad approach is whining how, exactly?

 

So they had money and didn't spend it?  Hmmmmm....

 

I guess we could all just come on here and say what a genius this leadership team is every post.....

 

No one on this thread has argued that......That isn't at all the point anyone here is making.......

[Mike Sixel]

So they had money and didn't spend it?  Hmmmmm....

 

 

No one on this thread has argued that......That isn't at all the point anyone here is making.......

 

How is that whining, and not, I don't know....assessing their plan? How is that whining? 

[Willihammer]

Some make an argument that if you don't get over that fear you are relegated to never participating in free agency.  This is another gross over simplification.  The potential to end up with $50M in dead weight or more probably under performing assets also has to be considered.  IMO, the benefit of Nolasco and Santana is we won't completely suck.  The cost is that payroll could have been allocated to filling the final holes to build a contender.

The Giants got 2.8 rWAR from $54 million spent in free agency last year and won the World Series.

 

edit:

Oh and that's not the first time the Giants won with dead weight on the books. Remember Barry Zito, that horrible 7 year contract and the TWO World Series he won in the final 4 years of it?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Great.  Does that mean there is some similarity in the approach they took to rebuild, despite the Cubs capacity for significantly higher payrolls?

No.  See above.  Cubs were much more aggressive in quantity, upside, length, timing, and source of signings over the past 3 years.  Before Lester, they were still widely believed to have a better immediate and long-term future than the Twins, despite equal or lower financial obligations.

[TheLeviathan]

So how many of you would trade the Twins roster and farm system right now for the Cubs system?

 

I think I would make that trade right now.  But it's a really hard choice.

[TheLeviathan]

how is that even true? Limits himself to one avenue? First focus was through player acquisition via trades (getting Meyer and May and Worley)... Then they altered their draft focus the last several years as well, continuing to take high upside, toolsy prep players (which they've had a LOT of success with) and now more hard-throwing pitchers. They have always been ahead of the curve signing players internationally outside of DR, VZ, but now they're a strong player in those markets as well. They've tried Japan (and it didn't work). They were at least at the table in Korea. They've always done pretty well with minor league free agents. They're generally active in the Rule 5 draft. And now since Terry Ryan's return, they've been active in the free agent market. Two $50M pitchers the last two offseasons and Hughes at $24M. No, it's not $100-150M pitchers, but who would advocate that?!

 

1)  Yes, he's made trades.  Two significant ones.  Otherwise he's been extremely quiet on that front and that is something we've seen through his tenure.  He's gun-shy to move prospects and very selective about dealing veterans.  That adds up to a very limited trading range.

 

2)  I absolutely give credit for the changed draft approach.  Very smart decision.  But drafting and scouting still remains his almost exclusive way of building talent in the system.

 

3)  Yes, the last two FA seasons have been MUCH better and I hope they are evidence of a permanent change in approach.  But while I heartily endorse the Santana and Nolasco moves, we are still targeting a lot of the same tired tripe we've targeted for years.  He's still basically ignoring the Cuban/IFA scene.  He's still not filling openings with buy-low types (See: Jake Arrieta). 

 

Ryan is a good GM, I do appreciate the work he does, but he is not as aggressive and risk-taking as Epstein and that counts for something.  I don't need him to be an Old West gunslinger that just does whatever he wants, whenever...but I'd also like to see more moves that step out of our comfort zone from time to time.

[jay]

How is that whining, and not, I don't know....assessing their plan? How is that whining? 

 

Assessing the plan and moves is great.  When that turns into "they had the money and didn't spend it", it starts to sound like the #payrollwhiners that Mackey talks about.

[adjacent]

Besides all the points discussed above, we are talking about the Cubs like they are the most accomplished team. They seem to be doing some things right but they haven't won anything yet, have day? 

[SwainZag]

I guess I don't see how questioning their approach is whining.......they had the money to sign Cubans the last few years, and didn't. Suggesting that was a bad approach is whining how, exactly?

 

Passing on Santana last year, and signing Pelfrey instead, that's whining how?

 

I guess we could all just come on here and say what a genius this leadership team is every post.....

 

Meh....Pelfrey was signed in December to a 2 year 11M contact.  Santana was low-balled late in the off-season and wanted 4 years 50+M plus losing a draft pick, it's really not pick one or the other situation.

[Mike Sixel]

they lost a pick this year, and paid him more.........what's changed? I would have preferred it happen earlier with Santana, and they had not signed Pelfrey at all (which I made clear at the time). I'm not sure I understand your point.

[SwainZag]

they lost a pick this year, and paid him more.........what's changed? I would have preferred it happen earlier with Santana, and they had not signed Pelfrey at all (which I made clear at the time). I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

Your post just made it seem like they passed on Santana for Pelfrey....which they were very different decisions.  I also and I think the majority of Twins fans wished they wouldn't have signed Pelfrey the minute it was announced, but to make it seem like they could have had one or the other.....I guess I just don't look at it like that.

 

What has changed IMO is they are a step closer to competing.  They hit on Hughes, Gibson pitched decent in what was essentially his rookie yeat, Correia and his contract are gone and they stocked the system with power arms from the last draft.....not to mention they also have a compensatory pick to go along with the pick they gave up for Santana.

[Mike Sixel]

They passed on the same deal last year, when they had more questions about their starting pitching. That is the point I (and Brock, for example) have made. They passed when May and Meyer were further from being MLB pitchers (and Berrrios too). They instead signed Pelfrey (or, they signed Pelfrey, and could have still signed Santana, whatever). You sign Santana to a 4 year deal when you have less pitching (and when you think Buxton will be up), not when you have more, right after you already signed Nolasco and Hughes to 4 year deals.

 

IMO, both of those were mistakes. that's all that post meant to say, not sure how it said anything else.

[ashbury]

fans are somehow stupid

That seems like a mischaracterization.  The poster you replied to seemed to be taking pains to not  say this.  "Not qualified to be GM", which is the sense I take from his explanation, isn't close to the same as "stupid".

 

However I too am troubled by the inference I take that unless one is qualified to be a GM, one is not qualified to comment except with extreme caution and meekness.  (The repeated references to P&L salary drive home that inference for me.)  While the moderators try to keep the conversation civil, this is still a sports web site, and people can express widely divergent opinions without the requirement to demonstrate their qualifications before speaking.

 

But on a third hand, it does get old to see people post "well, I  think the team should [do something that likely goes far outside business logic]," and remain immune to rebuttal by saying "but they should."

 

Bottom line for me is that this kind of tangent won't ever get settled to anyone's satisfaction, and the solution should be to continue discussing with evidence and well-constructed opinion, and with mutual respect.  My personal guess, BTW, is that the demographic, served by TD specifically, skews a bit higher on the "qualified" axis than most places you can discuss the Twins.

[Craig Arko]

In the right hands, fans are in fact deadly weapons.

 

[ashbury]

In the right hands, fans are in fact deadly weapons.

 

Agreed:

http://youtu.be/ES2dozTkogc

 

_{^{(Caution: NSFW, nor for anyone really. )}}

[Major League Ready]

There was absolutely no intent to suggest that people should not readily supply and support their opinions.  However, there are many people here who absolutely insist that the FO is incompetent because they don't do things as they would.  Go ahead and give your opinions but many of those opinions supplied here are wildly over confident.  It is incredibly optimistic for anyone here to believe they have a superior point of view and capability as compared to the Twins FO. 

[jay]

It is incredibly optimistic for anyone here to believe they have a superior point of view and capability as compared to the Twins FO.

I'd add the distinction of ANY FO, nothing specific about the Twins.

 

However, the important part is that doesn't stop all of us from sharing our opinions. I would agree though that the common refrain around the front office of (x franchise) being full of un-informed, illogical idiots whose experiences pale to our opinions is far overplayed.

[old nurse]

Rizzo was obtained for Chisner who might become a very player.

Arrieta for Feldman.

Way too soon to say if the Samardzija/Hammels trade was good or bad, so I will put it this way, 1 very good trade that could end up being just a good trade, and1 very good trade, is about all Chicago has for all of their manipulations. The yhave useful parts to show for their signings. Useful parts should fill out a roster, not fill your roster. The Ryan trades, signings and the like? Hughes to the very good. Useful parts, the Twins have obtained numerous useful parts. Escobar might be in the decent trade category if he holds the starting SS position.

Nolasco may rebound into being better than a useful part. Then again, so couldn't Jackson

The Cubs have a minor league full of potential that have a little bit more time in the major leaues that the Twins minor league players that are full of potential.

So are the Twins spending enough money?  No, they need to pay someone to smuggle them decent scouting reports on Cuban players. For next season the answer comes at the end of the year. They did not add anything real bad in terms of how they spent their money. I doubt if there was much better they could have spent their money on thusfar that would been better. They still need to buy some bullpen help, which also leaves the answer as is no.

[USAFChief]

Some make an argument that if you don't get over that fear you are relegated to never participating in free agency.  This is another gross over simplification.  The potential to end up with $50M in dead weight or more probably under performing assets also has to be considered.  IMO, the benefit of Nolasco and Santana is we won't completely suck.  The cost is that payroll could have been allocated to filling the final holes to build a contender.

Forgive me, but that doesn't look to me like a financial argument. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with "full P&L Responsibility" for a multi million dollar corporation.

 

That looks to me like a baseball argument..."we shouldn't have signed these guys, now, we should have waited and signed those other guys, later."

 

So that leaves me wondering whether your post is any different in substance than the other posts in these forums.