BPro: Twins Are Not A "Small Market" Team

[DaveW]

 

Not you in particular mike...

But to be clear, does payroll need to be bigger or is it fine within the ranges it has been? There's no room for multiple positions there.

Even though I want the Twins to first and foremost spend on better FA, yes, Payroll should be larger, the number I have thrown out time and time again is $120-$135 million per year.

[tobi0040]

 

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'd add a payroll range below that for rebuilding.

The top end of that range is typically going to happen on the back end of a competitive window as a core talent group gets more expensive. Hitting that peak payroll earlier through acquiring an elite FA or 2 is certainly a strategy, although riskier and will inevitably affect the ability to retain at some point. I think those long deals can act to restrict moving into a rebuild phase and we've seen that typically takes too long already (not unique to the Twins).

I think the Twins' strategy is to fill in serviceable to above average vets where they need to and rely on their controllable talent to drive success.

I wouldn't mind seeing more risks taken, but probably not to the same extreme as some others. IMO, it's commonly a "I want it all" stance.

 

I agree with this.  The interesting thing will be the 2017-2019 range.  We could be in a position where we have a really talented core (Sano, Buxton, Berrios, Kepler, Rosario, etc) that are not making much money.  And the end is in sight of the larger contracts, Nolasco (2017), Ervin (2018), and Mauer (2018). 

 

Even if you extend the young guys early, those deals are typically arb + a few million in the early years.  So it would seem like the Twins would have some capacity to add a 2-4 year deal for a really good player or two in that range.  The other approach would be to smooth out the Berrios/Buxon/Sano deals so they are not so backloaded.  But you don't see that much in baseball.

 

I would argue the Royals are in the 8th inning of their run.   About where the Twins were in 2008.  It is a lot harder to keep the core together when Gordon goes from $12M to $19M.  Cain got a $7M raise and a two year deal that expires with his arb.  Someone could hand him 7/140 after that.  The timing could work out really well for us, especially because it appears Detroit is going to keep speding every off-season with an aging roster.

 

 

[drjim]

 

Payroll could be $3-4M higher, i.e. one relief pitcher.  That is not really an outlandish statement.  That one contract would likely put the Twins in about the same rank they had this year. Especially when you offset it with the million or so Abad will make when he is on the ML roster.

 

Could they use money in a better fashion, i.e. is there 3-4M in deadweight on this team to sign the player without increasing payroll?  Absolutely. 

 

I think money would have been better spent on a good reliever rather than tendering Milone, or signing Park for that matter. 

 

I think a good FA reliever over a guy like Abad would provide more value than:

 

Milone over Berrios

 

Park over Arcia/Vargas

 

Or you could find savings by moving Plouffe for prospects.  All in I think Sano at 3B over playing in the OF makes the team bettter.  But at the end of the day the Twins have already done these things (signed Abad, Park, Milone), or plan on doing the other things (Sano to OF).

 

I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive at all.

 

I think it could be higher than $3-4 mil higher. I don't think that gets much of a reliever.

[drjim]

 

Well, for this year, I'd have liked to see 1-2 RPs, so I think it is a bit low this year.

 

In years they want to compete, I'd like to see them in the top 10-12 range on payroll, in other years, in the top 15-20 in payroll. That might not be realistic, but that's what I'd want.

 

For last year or the year before, I would have preferred "overpaying" to get an elite SP here somehow. Signing Santana after signing Hughes and Nolasco and Pelfrey......that's too much for me on average/mediocre guys, imo. That said, I get why they did it, I just didn't agree.

 

So the Twins were 18 last year and (about) 17 this year. I assume that means you are relatively pleased with the amount, if not necessarily the distribution?

[drjim]

 

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'd add a payroll range below that for rebuilding.

The top end of that range is typically going to happen on the back end of a competitive window as a core talent group gets more expensive. Hitting that peak payroll earlier through acquiring an elite FA or 2 is certainly a strategy, although riskier and will inevitably affect the ability to retain at some point. I think those long deals can act to restrict moving into a rebuild phase and we've seen that typically takes too long already (not unique to the Twins).

I think the Twins' strategy is to fill in serviceable to above average vets where they need to and rely on their controllable talent to drive success.

I wouldn't mind seeing more risks taken, but probably not to the same extreme as some others. IMO, it's commonly a "I want it all" stance.

 

I would say the Twins are wise to be a little conservative in avoiding locking up too much money more than 4 years down the line. If everything shakes out as hoped they will be looking to lock up two elite guys and several other good players, they will need space for that.

 

They could do some short term stuff in the interim, but they aren't getting high end free agents on short years.

[Mike Sixel]

I am not convinced they aren't competitors this year, I think another few million on the RP would make sense. THEY seem to think they are competitors, given the Park signing, his age, and other position players......so it is confusing from that perspective (or I am not understanding the Park signing).

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would say the Twins are wise to be a little conservative in avoiding locking up too much money more than 4 years down the line. If everything shakes out as hoped they will be looking to lock up two elite guys and several other good players, they will need space for that.

 

They could do some short term stuff in the interim, but they aren't getting high end free agents on short years.

But that wasn't the case a couple years ago, was it? Sano and Buxton were at least 6 years away from a major payday then...

[drjim]

 

But that wasn't the case a couple years ago, was it? Sano and Buxton were at least 6 years away from a major payday then...

 

Which is probably why they have signed Nolasco, Hughes and Santana in that time. Almost $180 mil.

[drjim]

 

I am not convinced they aren't competitors this year, I think another few million on the RP would make sense. THEY seem to think they are competitors, given the Park signing, his age, and other position players......so it is confusing from that perspective (or I am not understanding the Park signing).

 

I think they think they are competitors too, haven't found a reliever deal they liked. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Which is probably why they have signed Nolasco, Hughes and Santana in that time. Almost $180 mil.

Yeah, I've kept out of this thread because I don't have much issue with their payroll, more issue with their allocations and priorities. I'll back out again now.

[jimmer]

The Nolasco, Hughes and Santana signings are not big signings in today's market.  Going rate for #3 type pitcher. Just because they are big signings for US (Ryan), doesn't mean we can break out the big spender label for him.

And I can't imagine this team as constructed will double down on the luck from last year and be competitors this year.  I think that's, um, wishful thinking at best.

[tobi0040]

I think it could be higher than $3-4 mil higher. I don't think that gets much of a reliever.

How about Steve Cishek? Sporting news had him as the 6th best reliever on the market and he signed for 2-10. If you take his 5m salary less the 1m that Abad is likely to make, payroll goes up by 4m.

 

Keep in mind Cishek is 30, has closed before and his career ERA + of 139 dwarfs the two set up guys we have Jepsen is 110 and Fein at 107 (who we tendered for 2.3m). Heck, we traded for Jepsen at the same AAV.

 

Again we could have signed Cishek or someone in that class without payroll going up a dime by being a tad creative.

[dougd]

Interesting discussion. The author of the BPro article who spawned these 15 pages, Jack Moore, has another article out today which is at least tangentially related: "The sports cable time bomb: how MLB's settlement only delays the inevitable."

 

http://tinyurl.com/zmbzcr9

 

The article is in the guardian.com in case the tinyurl didn't work.

 

The conclusion: "Major League Baseball is protecting its golden goose by settling and keeping the courts away from their precious blackouts. But the way people watch sports and pay for their entertainment in general is changing. By forcing fans to go through cable monopolies to access the game, baseball is losing much-needed opportunities to win over new, young fans. This may not be an immediate problem, but quite simply, Major League Baseball won’t be able to rely on people who don’t care about its product to pay its bills forever."

 

This has next to nothing to do with whether the Twins should have outbid everyone for a good LH reliever for a 2-3 year contract, or whether more expensive but fewer free agents should have been signed. But if you the owner believe that baseball revenues  are in bubble territory, and you have many youngsters that you would like to keep, that probably does influence the immediate budget.

[drjim]

Here was a Keith Law answer from his chat yesterday:

 

 

 

Marshall: The Twins have gotten some criticism from fans for not going hard enough after new RP – however, I actually think we can get more bang for our buck by augmenting the bullpen with your power arms that are near the majors (Burdi, Reed, Chargois, Meyer, etc).
Klaw: Yeah that is the worst possible thing they could do. Plus ownership clearly doesn’t want to spend a ton on payroll, so why would Ryan spend it in the place where ROIs tend to be terrible?

 

I know people are upset about the lack of a RP signing, but there is some actual baseball wisdom behind being hesitant. I am with Law on this, which is why I'm not as upset with throwing numbers at the wall.

[Mike Sixel]

I could swear someone already posted that.....

 

My response, what is the ROI on rolling out a truly awful RP for $2MM? or $4MM? or even the minimum?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Here was a Keith Law answer from his chat yesterday:

 

 

I know people are upset about the lack of a RP signing, but there is some actual baseball wisdom behind being hesitant. I am with Law on this, which is why I'm not as upset with throwing numbers at the wall.

That Law quote came up in another thread.  In modern MLB, 2/12 isn't that much.  Teams gamble that much (or more) on mediocre starters, injury comebacks, and international unknowns all the time, even the Twins.  Teams regularly hand out multiple millions to veterans just because they like the cut of their jib.

 

Why do we suddenly care about strict ROI when it's a reliever?

[drjim]

 

That Law quote came up in another thread.  In modern MLB, 2/12 isn't that much.  Teams gamble that much (or more) on mediocre starters, injury comebacks, and international unknowns all the time, even the Twins.  Teams regularly hand out multiple millions to veterans just because they like the cut of their jib.

 

Why do we suddenly care about strict ROI when it's a reliever?

 

My mistake, I don't read all the threads (who has time for that?)

 

I think 2/12 is fine for Bastardo, but I wouldn't have gone more, so I wouldn't have gotten him.

[drjim]

 

I could swear someone already posted that.....

 

My response, what is the ROI on rolling out a truly awful RP for $2MM? or $4MM? or even the minimum?

 

Which thread is that in?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think 2/12 is fine for Bastardo, but I wouldn't have gone more, so I wouldn't have gotten him.

Normally I'm with you, but in this case, who knows.  Make that offer early enough, maybe Bastardo doesn't bother waiting and haggling to get more than one year from the Mets.  Make that offer to Mark Lowe in the beginning of the offseason and you might easily have landed him (he seemed eager to sign).
 

The Twins were connected to, what, a one year, $3-4 mil evaluation of Bastardo?  This is a team that sinks $2.2 mil in Tim Stauffer just to have another veteran in the back end of their mediocre bullpen in a likely rebuilding year.

[drjim]

 

Normally I'm with you, but in this case, who knows.  Make that offer early enough, maybe Bastardo doesn't bother waiting and haggling to get more than one year from the Mets.  Make that offer to Mark Lowe in the beginning of the offseason and you might easily have landed him (he seemed eager to sign).
 

The Twins were connected to, what, a one year, $3-4 mil evaluation of Bastardo?  This is a team that sinks $2.2 mil in Tim Stauffer just to have another veteran in the back end of their mediocre bullpen in a likely rebuilding year.

 

I don't know if we can ever know what is offered and when.

 

My impression was that Bastardo had 3/18 on his mind from the beginning and finally accepted his market. I heard the 1/4 from the Twins, but that struck me as unrealistic enough to not even bother mentioning - which is of course possible.

 

FWIW, Ryan keeps mentioning trade over signing, so it does seem unlikely he'll do a 1/2.5 deal for the bottom of the market. I could go either way, but I would probably rather roll with what they got than give a guarantee to the Thortons and Cotts of the world.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That Law quote came up in another thread.  In modern MLB, 2/12 isn't that much.  Teams gamble that much (or more) on mediocre starters, injury comebacks, and international unknowns all the time, even the Twins.  Teams regularly hand out multiple millions to veterans just because they like the cut of their jib.

 

Why do we suddenly care about strict ROI when it's a reliever?

 

Because at the end of the day it's a business and things like ROI matter?

 

I really don't get the spend for the sake of spending argument, and even if that isn't what was meant here, it's how it comes across.  Just because the money is in the payroll, doesn't mean we should sign anyone for it.  They didn't like what was available at the price they wanted to spend, so they  chose not to spend it. Given what's coming up the pipeline, I understand, even if I don't agree (I wanted O'Day in the pen with May starting for the record).

[Otto von Ballpark]

Because at the end of the day it's a business and things like ROI matter?

 

I really don't get the spend for the sake of spending argument, and even if that isn't what was meant here, it's how it comes across. Just because the money is in the payroll, doesn't mean we should sign anyone for it. They didn't like what was available at the price they wanted to spend, so they chose not to spend it. Given what's coming up the pipeline, I understand, even if I don't agree (I wanted O'Day in the pen with May starting for the record).

Thanks for at least admitting up front that you were refuting something I didn't say.

 

Of course ROI can be important, but it seems a lot of people just latch onto it as a justification in certain discussions (like FA relievers) while ignoring it in others. If Law is anything like noted Twins crank Gleeman, he might oppose a great many of our moves with an ROI justification, so selectively quoting just one and ignoring the others doesn't mean much.

 

It's a business, true, but it is also a sport and plenty of decisions are made and money committed for far more esoteric non-ROI reasons than, say, the Twins adding a particular FA reliever to their current pen for 2/12.

 

And unfortunately it's not at all clear yet that this is part of a strategy based around our young relief prospects, that is part of the problem. In 2015 the Twins were notoriously loathe to commit to youngsters in the pen, both when the stakes were low (April) and higher (September). Hard to predict right now what they will do in that regard in 2016.

[USAFChief]

Because at the end of the day it's a business and things like ROI matter?

 

I really don't get the spend for the sake of spending argument, and even if that isn't what was meant here, it's how it comes across. Just because the money is in the payroll, doesn't mean we should sign anyone for it. They didn't like what was available at the price they wanted to spend, so they chose not to spend it. Given what's coming up the pipeline, I understand, even if I don't agree (I wanted O'Day in the pen with May starting for the record).

MLB isn't like other businesses, which measure success solely on the basis of profit and loss.

 

Baseball teams need to also measure success in terms of wins and losses. How valuable would 2 more wins have been in 2015? There's a ROI that needs consideration.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I really don't get the spend for the sake of spending argument

I'm on your side. Twins spending reminds me of the "use it or lose it" budget spending you see in government. It leads to too many contracts you have absolutely no use for. But hey, if payroll is in line with revenue, then the Twins must be doing it right.

[drjim]

 

MLB isn't like other businesses, which measure success solely on the basis of profit and loss.

Baseball teams need to also measure success in terms of wins and losses. How valuable would 2 more wins have been in 2015? There's a ROI that needs consideration.

 

And that is a more accurate interpretation of what Law means by ROI in this case. He's not talking about profit, he's talking about production/wins per dollar spent.

 

Law's point, as I see it, is that if the Twins (or other similar market sized teams) are limited in payroll they shouldn't be tying it up in relievers, especially at the prices they are going for this offseason. From my perspective a one year deal wouldn't matter, probably not even two, but if you are starting to tie up payroll three years in advance on good but not elite relievers, that is where you start seeing a very poor ROI over time.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Thanks for at least admitting up front that you were refuting something I didn't say.

Of course ROI can be important, but it seems a lot of people just latch onto it as a justification in certain discussions (like FA relievers) while ignoring it in others. If Law is anything like noted Twins crank Gleeman, he might oppose a great many of our moves with an ROI justification, so selectively quoting just one and ignoring the others doesn't mean much.

It's a business, true, but it is also a sport and plenty of decisions are made and money committed for far more esoteric non-ROI reasons than, say, the Twins adding a particular FA reliever to their current pen for 2/12.

And unfortunately it's not at all clear yet that this is part of a strategy based around our young relief prospects, that is part of the problem. In 2015 the Twins were notoriously loathe to commit to youngsters in the pen, both when the stakes were low (April) and higher (September). Hard to predict right now what they will do in that regard in 2016.

 

Yeah, wasn't necessarily responding completely to you in my post   I think the thing that bothers me though in this spend vs. not spend argument is that there's an undercurrent philosophy that says, 'you have the money, spend it'.  We forget that to extent we did that when we got Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey, and other than maybe Hughes, none of those signings were smashing hits.  For 1 year deals at spots of weakness, I'm all in, but just understand the risk is low upside or high risk of injury.  For long term deals with no imminent help in the farm, I'm definitely game (though I want a game changer here). 

 

I just get a little bothered when I hear the idea tossed about or implied that ROI doesn't matter. It is a business.  It matters, and teams are a bit loathe to shed bad contracts, which is why Nolasco still dons a Twins uniform, as they committed 48 million to him, and this is hardly unique to the Twins.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was out right released this spring (if he's bad), but he's got a spot on the team like it or not if he has a pulse this spring.  You get a few guys like that, and suddenly real talent is being blocked or it's eating into real extensions. 

[tobi0040]

Yeah, wasn't necessarily responding completely to you in my post I think the thing that bothers me though in this spend vs. not spend argument is that there's an undercurrent philosophy that says, 'you have the money, spend it'. We forget that to extent we did that when we got Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey, and other than maybe Hughes, none of those signings were smashing hits. For 1 year deals at spots of weakness, I'm all in, but just understand the risk is low upside or high risk of injury. For long term deals with no imminent help in the farm, I'm definitely game (though I want a game changer here).

 

I just get a little bothered when I hear the idea tossed about or implied that ROI doesn't matter. It is a business. It matters, and teams are a bit loathe to shed bad contracts, which is why Nolasco still dons a Twins uniform, as they committed 48 million to him, and this is hardly unique to the Twins. I wouldn't be surprised if he was out right released this spring (if he's bad), but he's got a spot on the team like it or not if he has a pulse this spring. You get a few guys like that, and suddenly real talent is being blocked or it's eating into real extensions.

Here is what I think a few teams have figured out. You could go out and sign or trade for three really, really good relievers for around $7M a year each. Darren O'day for example, has been lights out almost his entire career. Clearly a really good four year run. He will run about $7M and he will pitch about 65 innings a year.

 

Well if you have three of them they match the innings of a starter and you can use them in the most highest of leverage situations. But a really, really good starter on the FA market may approach $25M and likely won't pitch in the high leverage situations all the time. There will be starts where their team scores 10 runs or can't score a run at all and they lose.

 

Further, top shelf pen talent can typically be had on 3-4 year deals. Not the 7-8 year deal starters tend to get.

[Mike Sixel]

ROI matters. Phew, that was hard.

 

What is the ROI on relying on TERRIBLE baseball players? They might cost less, but do you get less revenue? Does losing create a cycle where good players won't sign here (many of the posters here say that).