Article: Big Splash? More Like Big Slash

[Tom Froemming]

The Cleveland Indians are in the World Series, marking the third-straight season and fourth out of the last five years the American League Champion has come from the Central. So the Twins are doomed to toil in last place in this juggernaut division, right? Maybe not.

 

Yes, things are looking up in Believeland, but the rest of the division appears to be very much up in the air. And if you read some of the season review/offseason preview content, there are a lot of things to like if you're a Twins fan.After back-to-back World Series appearances culminating with a title, the Royals appeared poised for an extended stay atop the division. After all, they had very few changes to their championship roster. But Kansas City finished right at .500 this season, and it sounds like general manager Dayton Moore will be very limited financially.

 

Sam Mellinger of the Kansas City Star took a look at the organization's future in an excellent piece. In that article, Mellinger reports the Royals are likely to lower their payroll from last season. He speculates that accomplishing that task would require not only declining the options on both Edinson Volquez and Kendrys Morales, but the team would also have to trade someone like Wade Davis.

 

Could Detroit also be positioned to trade away established players? The Tigers actually finished second in the division, bouncing back from a last-place finish the year prior to fall just 2.5 games out of the playoffs. Sounds like a team on the rise, right? Not so much when you listen to quotes from general manager Al Avila.

 

"We certainly want to stay competitive," Avila told MLB.com reporter Jason Beck. "We certainly want to be able to try to get back in the playoffs. But at the same time, this organization has been working way above its means for many, many years."

 

It's not like Miguel Cabrera or Justin Verlander are going anywhere, but it also doesn't sound likely the Tigers will be making their annual big splash either. If anything, it sounds like they'll be trying to shed payroll.

 

The White Sox made some splashy moves of their own last offseason and posted a surprising 17-8 record in April. They collapsed from there, finishing with 78 wins. It was an odd season that started with Adam LaRoche's sudden retirement, had Chris Sale cutting up throwback jerseys somewhere in the middle and has ended with manager Robin Ventura stepping down after five seasons.

 

ESPN's Buster Olney said the handling of Ventura's final days, "provided perfect insight into the organization's dysfunction and why the team is doomed to mediocrity for years to come unless something changes in the way it operates." And quotes from their GM aren't exactly going to get Sox fans rushing out to renew their season tickets.

 

“Everyone in that front office is looking for the best path to get us on an extended period of success even if that involves a short-term step-back,” Rick Hahn toldDaryl Van Schouwen of the Chicago Sun Times.

 

 

If you ask me, that sounds like GM speak for "we're going to rebuild." Hahn also said "by the time we make our first or second transaction, publicly it will be fairly clear as to our direction." Or, GM speak for "we're gonna be super obvious about rebuilding."

 

Swinging back to Cleveland, yes, they will have most of their core returning next season. All except their secret weapon ... Derek Falvey (insert evil laugh). But seriously, with their pitching staff back healthy (presumably), Cleveland will likely be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Good teams never have problems attracting players, but don't expect Cleveland to blow the bank on free agent additions.

 

Revenue has been tough to come by, Cleveland ranked 28th in attendance this season and the last time the they were even inside the top 20 in attendance was 2002. Their bottom line will get a nice boost from all these postseason games, but it's not like they'll be singing any superstars.

 

As for the Twins, we don't have any doom and gloom quotes from our GM, no sir. Then again, we don't have one of those yet. And our President of Baseball Operations is working for another team at the moment. But when you're coming off the worst season in team history, sometimes no news is good news.

 

Click here to view the article

[Vanimal46]

IMO...

Kansas City takes a shot for one more year while they have Cain, Moustakas, Hosmer, etc. under contract. If they're out of it by July, I could see a big fire sale from them. 

Detroit's owner has been consistent on saying he wants a title before he passes away... Until that happens, whether it's right or wrong, they'll always be in win-now mode. 

Cleveland's window starts now, and should last another 1-2 years. It will be difficult, maybe impossible, to maintain this sort of excellence with a limited budget. As soon as their rock star pitching staff needs to get paid, along with Lindor needing mega money, they're out of it. 

[Mike Sixel]

If I'm Detroit, I try to win next year.

 

KC, MN, and Chi will all be down.....the Tigers still have great players. I think I try one more time with them, and if it doesn't work, they can do what they did 2 years ago, and add great young players.

[ashbury]

As soon as their rock star pitching staff needs to get paid, along with Lindor needing mega money, they're out of it. 

Forbes estimates of team revenues for 2016, and rank within MLB:

KC $273M 11th

DET $268M 14th

MIN $240M 20th

CWS $240M 21st

CLE $220M 27th

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true

 

KC and the Tigers have the wherewithal to retain one big-time star more than the Twins and Sox do, who in turn can do one more than Cleveland. Or they can divide up the difference in other ways - whatever. They all operate at a disadvantage to the $300M+ teams, but at least aren't in the same boat as the sub-$200M Florida teams.

 

The question in my mind, which you raise in Cleveland's case but IMO applies to all five, is whether sustained success is possible, or periodic times of famine are unavoidable. I tend to think the former is possible, but that comes from playing too many simulated OOTP seasons and preying on idiot rival GMs. The view I think is more realistic is as described in the article here, and a window might be opening up.

[Willihammer]

The idea that KC is actually considering declining Volquez's mutual option, when Volquez wants to come back, over $10m, seems crazy to me. Same with Morales.

[Willihammer]

Sounds like KC is in a little window right now where they just ran an operating loss, which their cheap ass owner hates doing apparently, and renegotiating their TV contract which probably won't happen for another year. They could be looking to dump salary. Should the Twins have any interest in their highest paid players- Gordon, Kennedy, Vargas?

[Vanimal46]

No on Gordon and Kennedy... Maybe for Vargas. 

[Willihammer]

I agree Vargas is an interesting bounceback candidate. Straight TJS.

[ashbury]

The idea that KC is actually considering declining Volquez's mutual option, when Volquez wants to come back, over $10m, seems crazy to me.

Volquez's option has a $3M buyout, so I think that means they are arguing over $7M. He had a bad year, but can they find someone better for $7M? I doubt it.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Forbes estimates of team revenues for 2016, and rank within MLB:

KC $273M 11th

DET $268M 14th

MIN $240M 20th

CWS $240M 21st

CLE $220M 27th

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true

 

KC and the Tigers have the wherewithal to retain one big-time star more than the Twins and Sox do, who in turn can do one more than Cleveland. Or they can divide up the difference in other ways - whatever. They all operate at a disadvantage to the $300M+ teams, but at least aren't in the same boat as the sub-$200M Florida teams.

 

The question in my mind, which you raise in Cleveland's case but IMO applies to all five, is whether sustained success is possible, or periodic times of famine are unavoidable. I tend to think the former is possible, but that comes from playing too many simulated OOTP seasons and preying on idiot rival GMs. The view I think is more realistic is as described in the article here, and a window might be opening up.

Great stuff, thanks for sharing. It surprises me KC is so high, although I'm sure coming off the World Series victory had a lot to do with that.

[Thrylos]

 

 

KC, MN, and Chi will all be down.....

 

Mercy.  There is not much lower to go for the Twins.  Are you sure that they will be down (compared to 2016?)

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mercy.  There is not much lower to go for the Twins.  Are you sure that they will be down (compared to 2016?)

 

ha, down from contention, but yes, I can see how you read it that way!

[old nurse]

Morales was their best bat last year. What can his production be replaced with? 11 million, 1.5 buyout. Unless the number crunchers figure that somebody good will fall through the cracks, he probably stays.

 

[nicksaviking]

Man baseball needs a hard cap and a hard floor. This thread just demonstrates the problems mid-market midwest teams are going to have consistently competing. I'm fine with rebuilding if something isn't working, but there really isn't even an option for retaining your core and trying to add auxiliary pieces to it after a down season or two, and that should be an option for all clubs, not just the ones in NY, LA and Boston.

 

If for some reason the Cubs tank next year, they aren't going to have to talk about trading Rizzo, Arrieta or Bryant. A team like the Royals really has no choice.

[Vanimal46]

 

Man baseball needs a hard cap and a hard floor. This thread just demonstrates the problems mid-market midwest teams are going to have consistently competing. I'm fine with rebuilding if something isn't working, but there really isn't even an option for retaining your core and trying to add auxiliary pieces to it after a down season or two, and that should be an option for all clubs, not just the ones in NY, LA and Boston.

 

If for some reason the Cubs tank next year, they aren't going to have to talk about trading Rizzo, Arrieta or Bryant. A team like the Royals really has no choice.

Yeah it's tough to maintain parity and a consistent winner when other teams are on a different revenue level. 

MLB I believe is different than the other big sports in which they can negotiate their own TV deals, and rake in as much cash as possible. Compared to the other sports where they're on a league wide plan and share the revenues evenly. 

The mid market Midwestern teams will always be at a disadvantage in that sense when a team like the Dodgers can negotiate a gazillion dollar TV deal and use it to buy whoever they want. 

[Mike Sixel]

I'm all for revenue sharing.....there is no MLB w/o the other teams...

 

I'd really like to see every team throw, say, 75% of their revenue in a pot, and then have it divided up...or something like that. But, no chance.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm all for revenue sharing.....there is no MLB w/o the other teams...

 

I'd really like to see every team throw, say, 75% of their revenue in a pot, and then have it divided up...or something like that. But, no chance.

 

The TV deals need to be shared.  Let's start there.

[Thrylos]

 

Man baseball needs a hard cap and a hard floor. This thread just demonstrates the problems mid-market midwest teams are going to have consistently competing.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you checked who is in the World Series and what is their payroll and attendance?

 

The position that the current system hurts "mid and small market" teams is a fallacy.  Have the Twins been non-competitive because they were mid market? Or because incompetence leads to non competitiveness?

 

Data:

 

Here are the pairings in the WS the last 10 years plus this one:

 

Indians Cubs/LA

Royals Mets

Giants Royals

Red Sox Cardinals
Giants Tigers
Cardinals Rangers
Giants Rangers
Yankees Phillies
Phillies Rays
Red Sox Rockies
Cardinals Tigers

 

About the same mid/small market teams got there as big market teams

 

It is not about the market, it is about:

 

a. knowing how to build a competitive team

b. have the right people to manage this team

c. be willing to be opportunistic and make sacrifices when you see a window of opportunity

d. have a fanbase that demands winning.

 

The Twins have failed in all of those 4 for a long long time.

 

[ScrapTheNickname]

I believe a more accurate accounting is to look at who made the playoffs (the World Series is a crap schoot within a crapshoot within a crapshoot based on who has the best 2 starting pitchers and best fireballers at the end of the bullpen - it just kind of becomes boring), but that's beside the point I'm making.)

 

Look at the top 13 team salaries for 2016. What do you see? You see that 10 of them made the playoffs (77%). The Indians this year and The Royals last year are definitely outliers, and isn't it shocking that the Yankees and Cardinals (and to a lesser extent, Detroit) not make it?

 

2016:

1 Los Angeles Dodgers      
2 New York Yankees       

Boston Red Sox           

4 Detroit Tigers               

5 Chicago Cubs              

6 San Francisco Giants      
7 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim    
8 Texas Rangers            

9 St. Louis Cardinals          
10 Washington Nationals

11 Toronto Blue Jays          
12 Baltimore Orioles           
13 New York Mets           

[thegambler]

Volquez, Morales, Vargas, and Davis are NOT long term players. They are at the point in their careers where they get 1 year deals, and often traded mid season to contenders. Gordon is past his prime. He will need to decide on whether or not to take less money to retire in Kansas City, or get more money and become one of those 1 year contract guys. I could see Gordon going to the As. He fits their business model.

[Thrylos]

 

I believe a more accurate accounting is to look at who made the playoffs (the World Series is a crap schoot within a crapshoot within a crapshoot based on who has the best 2 starting pitchers and best fireballers at the end of the bullpen - it just kind of becomes boring), but that's beside the point I'm making.)

 

a. you do realize that based on what you said (ie. that the teams with the best 2 starting pitchers and the best bullpen are most likely to make it to the World Series,) you just contradicted your argument that it is a "crapshoot".  It is either luck or not.  And having the best 2 SP and the best pen is not luck, but planning and building.

b. Highest salaries does not equate "biggest" markets.

c. there are no playoffs in baseball.

[Rosterman]

So that means the Twins could spend upwards of $130 million on payroll, which they won't, in 2017. They have Mauer on the books for two mroe seasons. They also have Santana and Perkins for two more years and Hughes for three, and that's about it. You might expect a considerable drop in revenue next season, but if the Twins can excite the fan base, maybe not. Still, whatever isn't spent one years doesn't seem to carry over to other years (why not). And, thusly, you have to weigh your prospects well, signing some sooner rather than later with the longterm gamble. But the question will always remain, do you ever again make someone a franchise player (like Mauer) and do you ever overspend for mid-level talent longterm (like most of the rotation of late).

[nicksaviking]

Just out of curiosity, have you checked who is in the World Series and what is their payroll and attendance?

 

The position that the current system hurts "mid and small market" teams is a fallacy.  Have the Twins been non-competitive because they were mid market? Or because incompetence leads to non competitiveness?

 

Data:

 

Here are the pairings in the WS the last 10 years plus this one:

 

Indians Cubs/LA

Royals Mets

Giants Royals

Red Sox Cardinals

Giants TigersCardinals Rangers

Giants Rangers

Yankees Phillies

Phillies Rays

Red Sox RockiesCardinals Tigers

 

About the same mid/small market teams got there as big market teams

 

It is not about the market, it is about:

 

a. knowing how to build a competitive team

b. have the right people to manage this team

c. be willing to be opportunistic and make sacrifices when you see a window of opportunity

d. have a fanbase that demands winning.

 

The Twins have failed in all of those 4 for a long long time.

My arguement wasn't that small markets can't get there, it's that they can't stay there.

 

Which team is more likely to be back to the WS five years from now with the same core, Chicago or Cleveland?

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

a. you do realize that based on what you said (ie. that the teams with the best 2 starting pitchers and the best bullpen are most likely to make it to the World Series,) you just contradicted your argument that it is a "crapshoot".  It is either luck or not.  And having the best 2 SP and the best pen is not luck, but planning and building.

b. Highest salaries does not equate "biggest" markets.

c. there are no playoffs in baseball.

I guess I did contradict myself. But what do you mean: there are no playoffs in baseball? Is it "called" something else? Because they are playoffs.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

 

My arguement wasn't that small markets can't get there, it's that they can't stay there.

Which team is more likely to be back to the WS five years from now with the same core, Chicago or Cleveland?

Excellent (and fairly obvious) point. Small-mid-market teams spring up regularly because of the parity-inducing draft system, etc. ... but they can't stay there. The Twins' run from 2001-2010 far exceeded the normal window of opportunity (do I have to say in my humble opinion?).

 

[old nurse]

 

a. you do realize that based on what you said (ie. that the teams with the best 2 starting pitchers and the best bullpen are most likely to make it to the World Series,) you just contradicted your argument that it is a "crapshoot".  It is either luck or not.  And having the best 2 SP and the best pen is not luck, but planning and building.

b. Highest salaries does not equate "biggest" markets.

c. there are no playoffs in baseball.

Look at Atlanta's playoff record with the staff they had. Johan Santana is 1-3  in the playoffs. You need 2 of the best starting pitchers, it is still a crapshoot if they are going to rise up.

[jimmer]

Santana had five starts in the playoffs and was great in four of them.

Edited October 25, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

Santana had five starts in the playoffs and was great in four of them.

 

I don't think the point was to dog Santana.  The point was you can't just say "have a couple great pitchers and you're good".  

 

Baseball playoffs are basically small sample size terrorism.  You can try to plan and have the best talent available to give yourself the best shot, but the small sample will always be there to humble you.  I think the point is, you can call it a crapshoot (totally uncertain) and still prepare the best you can.  But no matter how good Johan pitches he can still go 1-3 over a small sample and have his team lose most of those games.

[70charger]

 

I don't think the point was to dog Santana.  The point was you can't just say "have a couple great pitchers and you're good".  

 

Baseball playoffs are basically small sample size terrorism.  You can try to plan and have the best talent available to give yourself the best shot, but the small sample will always be there to humble you.  I think the point is, you can call it a crapshoot (totally uncertain) and still prepare the best you can.  But no matter how good Johan pitches he can still go 1-3 over a small sample and have his team lose most of those games.

 

"Small sample size terrorism" is such a better phrase than "crapshoot." I may start using from here on.

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't think the point was to dog Santana.  The point was you can't just say "have a couple great pitchers and you're good".  

 

Baseball playoffs are basically small sample size terrorism.  You can try to plan and have the best talent available to give yourself the best shot, but the small sample will always be there to humble you.  I think the point is, you can call it a crapshoot (totally uncertain) and still prepare the best you can.  But no matter how good Johan pitches he can still go 1-3 over a small sample and have his team lose most of those games.

Pretty spot on.  Getting to the world series is a poor measure of the impact of revenue.  There are many variables and its a small sample size.  Regular season records offer a much better statistical measure of the impact of revenue.  The Yankees won 1592 games since 2000.  Yes, the Royals won a WS.  They also won 359 games less since 2000.  The bottom 12 teams with the exception of Oakland have averaged 16 less wins/year.  (94 vs 78).  I think the correlation to revenue is very clear.

 

BTW ... Market is often used as a proxy from revenue but market size does not necessarily reflect revenue (ie.St. Louis)