Go get Verlander

[Craig Arko]

Where do you get your information?  Houston is the 3rd largest city in the US. They are one of the high revenue teams in sports.

 

 Baseball lags in Texas behind football and BB, but they can definitely afford to pay for Verlander.  As far as three minor leaguers--it's a pittance for a top SP with world series experience. Perhaps a high price for the Twins--but only because the Twins have stunk at drafting/developing talent. Acquiring Verlander shows that HOUS is a team that realizes that championship seasons come infrequently and that "paying up" to seize that opportunity demonstrates their commitment to their fans.  They will eventually get their investment back in time.

Houston is 4th largest, behind NY, LA, and Chicago. About 1-1/2 times the size of Dallas, by population.

[amjgt]

Obviously calling the Houston Astros a small market team in silly. They aren't. For a few years when they were bottoming out, they acted like a small market team, but that was part of their strategy (like the Cubs did). Having said that, even though they are in the 5th largest market, I wouldn't call them a large market team either. I could see Houston having a little issue with their media market size to fan base size because of the fact that such a high percentage of their population are transplants. And, you know.... Texas loves football.

 

Market size doesn't mean everything. The Detroit metro area isn't much larger than the Twin Cities (4.3M vs 3.6M) but they have 200M payroll and the Twins have a 100M payroll.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Again, the Astros pulled in $270m in revenue in 2015 (the last year I can find actual revenue numbers). That number is considerably higher today.

 

The Orioles pulled in $240m. Are they a tiny market team at that point?

 

What about the Rays? They pulled in $191m that season. Do they even qualify as an MLB team at that point?

 

The Twins also pulled in $240m, for the record.

[Doomtints]

 

All of this is anecdotal. I gave you hard numbers. 

 

It's anecdotal that the Comcast's Houston sports network was "valued" at $550M but went quickly bankrupt and was sold to AT&T for $1,000?

 

http://deadspin.com/astros-rockets-suing-comcast-over-failed-csn-houston-n-1710750462

As this played out, the Astros and Rockets had to pay Comcast something like $26M just to get their broadcast rights back.  So that once shiny TV rights valuation of $550M was actually -$26M!

[amjgt]

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Market size doesn't mean everything. The Detroit metro area isn't much larger than the Twin Cities (4.3M vs 3.6M) but they have 200M payroll and the Twins have a 100M payroll.

1. Detroit is an outlier because they spend silly money.

 

2. That's why we should use revenue, not market size. Under those numbers, Houston is an upper mid-market team.

[Doomtints]

 

Again, the Astros pulled in $270m in revenue in 2015 (the last year I can find actual revenue numbers). 

 

The Twins also pulled in $240m, for the record.

 

But gosh, the Houston area is so much bigger than the Twin Cities. How can the numbers possibly be this close?  Oh yeah, I already told you why.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's anecdotal that the Comcast's Houston sports network was "valued" at $550M but went quickly bankrupt and was sold to AT&T for $1,000?

 

http://deadspin.com/astros-rockets-suing-comcast-over-failed-csn-houston-n-1710750462

As this played out, the Astros and Rockets had to pay Comcast something like $26M just to get their broadcast rights back.  So that once shiny TV rights valuation of $550M was actually -$26M!

Either way, Houston's revenue puts them smack-dab in the middle of baseball in 2015.

 

And that number is higher now, as they've enjoyed recent success and their attendance is climbing steadily.

[Mike Sixel]

why does it matter, if Houston is small, medium, or large, exactly?

 

They found a way to add a player they believe in. They apparently have the money, even though they have some young players they might want to sign. Does anything else matter?

[amjgt]

Maybe the disagreement lies is the threshold for "small market"

 

I wouldn't call the Twins a small market team. Perhaps others would.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But gosh, the Houston area is so much bigger than the Twin Cities. How can the numbers possibly be this close?  Oh yeah, I already told you why.  

I notice you edited out the part of my post that shows how truly small "small market" teams are by comparison.

 

And revenue is fluid. The Twins have a newer stadium and were equally terrible to the Astros at the time (both coming off long bad streaks and saw middling success in 2015).

 

The numbers do you back you up on this. At all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Maybe the disagreement lies is the threshold for "small market"

 

I wouldn't call the Twins a small market team. Perhaps others would.

When there are teams pulling in literally 20%+ less revenue per season, the Twins cannot be a small market team.

 

And the Astros were 15% higher than the Twins in 2015.

[Doomtints]

 

But gosh, the Houston area is so much bigger than the Twin Cities. How can the numbers possibly be this close?  Oh yeah, I already told you why.  

 

Also, don't forget the Astros were still getting money from the league in 2014/2015 as part of their $70M package to move to the AL.

[Vanimal46]

 

But gosh, the Houston area is so much bigger than the Twin Cities. How can the numbers possibly be this close?  Oh yeah, I already told you why.  

 

I can concur with you that Houston isn't a big baseball market. As amjgt also pointed out, Houston is a very large city of transplants. Texas as a whole is becoming this way... Austin has 150 people moving here on a daily basis. 

 

There's potential just by sheer numbers that they could be a large market team. But residents of Houston that moved there from CA, AZ, FL, etc. don't care about Houston sports. 

Houston has always played second fiddle to the Dallas-based sports teams. I see way more bars advertising Rangers and Cowboys games than Astros and Texans games. 

[Tomj14]

 

Detroit would never have traded Verlander to the Twins, NO WAY, NO HOW.  Maybe if we took on 100% of his remaining salary they might have considered it, but i still doubt it.  Even still he's earning 28 million a year for the next three season 2018-2020.  Are you really sure you want to take on that kind of salary from a guy that has started to show cracks and is already 34 years old?  Just saying.

I don't understand that thinking at all. Lets say we had a 23 million dollar first baseman that is way over paid and everybody thinks said first baseman is rapidly declining. Wouldn't the best thing to do is trade that first basemen in the division, thus weakening the division team going forward?

I also find it interesting that a 75% Verlander might be the absolute ceiling for all but one or two of our minor league pitchers and we/some (TD) aren't interested?

[Steve Lein]

 

I think we'll just disagree on this. IMO, when a team is in a legit playoff race, you go get better. As a fan of this team since forever, I really don't want them to not finish off teams, like the previous GM did in the 2000s.

 

People can say "well, they'll be more ready in a year or two to do that"....remember when M&M were going to carry the Twins, and we should just wait a year or two? Players get hurt. Players under perform. Other teams also get better and add players. There are always reasons, ignoring the context of the current moment in a vacuum, to do nothing or make an individual decision. When the decision happens over and over, it is a process, and not a decision, and it becomes how a company operates. Like chief, I had hoped with a new GM, things would change. So far, there is no evidence that is true. They didn't sign many FAs, despite having the worst pitching around, and they didn't acquire players at either deadline to try to win.

 

Maybe next year will be different, but this year sure isn't. 

 

I, like everyone else here, think it is super fun that the Twins are in the thick of a run to make the playoff's this year.

 

However, and I've been saying this for months, this is not the year they should "go for it" or send off a bunch of their assets to get some players.

 

They're not leading the division, they're in the Wild Card. Their are six other teams still within 5 games of that wild card they currently hold, and they are 10 games back of the best team in the AL, and 6.5 back of their division leader. They have the 10th best record in all of baseball right now (that means they're the Common Man's "best of the lousiest, and lousiest of the best").

 

That is not the team to "Go for it" with. The ride is fun, but this isn't really their "contention window" yet. I suspect they'll take a minor jump forward next year and compete for the division until the end, but in 2019/2020 is when they'll really have that window.

 

You finish off your roster like you mention when you are a team, like Houston, who just did exactly that. 

 

I am fine with riding out this team with what they have. It's a lot of fun with the group they still have, and will be a lot more when it's guys like Romero, Gonsalves, Gordon, and maybe Rooker coming up to bolster the roster of what they already have, instead of not existing because they traded them off to "finish off" a team that wasn't realistically that good yet.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I, like everyone else here, think it is super fun that the Twins are in the thick of a run to make the playoff's this year.

 

However, and I've been saying this for months, this is not the year they should "go for it" or send off a bunch of their assets to get some players.

 

They're not leading the division, they're in the Wild Card. Their are six other teams still within 5 games of that wild card they currently hold, and they are 10 games back of the best team in the AL, and 6.5 back of their division leader. They have the 10th best record in all of baseball right now (that means they're the Common Man's "best of the lousiest, and lousiest of the best").

 

That is not the team to "Go for it" with. The ride is fun, but this isn't really their "contention window" yet. I suspect they'll take a minor jump forward next year and compete for the division until the end, but in 2019/2020 is when they'll really have that window.

 

You finish off your roster like you mention when you are a team, like Houston, who just did exactly that. 

 

I am fine with riding out this team with what they have. It's a lot of fun with the group they still have, and will be a lot more when it's guys like Romero, Gonsalves, Gordon, and maybe Rooker coming up to bolster the roster of what they already have, instead of not existing because they traded them off to "finish off" a team that wasn't realistically that good yet.

I agree with most of this, actually.

 

But I also believe there's a difference between "do nothing" and "do something". A small move or two that improves the 2017 squad was in order, in my opinion.

 

Unless the front office believes they won't be able to get a Vargas or Darvish this offseason. Then it makes more sense to be aggressive and have pursued someone like Verlander.

 

Lots of options depending on perspective. I just want the team to be better at the end of the day.

[Squirrel]

I, like everyone else here, think it is super fun that the Twins are in the thick of a run to make the playoff's this year.

 

However, and I've been saying this for months, this is not the year they should "go for it" or send off a bunch of their assets to get some players.

 

They're not leading the division, they're in the Wild Card. Their are six other teams still within 5 games of that wild card they currently hold, and they are 10 games back of the best team in the AL, and 6.5 back of their division leader. They have the 10th best record in all of baseball right now (that means they're the Common Man's "best of the lousiest, and lousiest of the best").

 

That is not the team to "Go for it" with. The ride is fun, but this isn't really their "contention window" yet. I suspect they'll take a minor jump forward next year and compete for the division until the end, but in 2019/2020 is when they'll really have that window.

 

You finish off your roster like you mention when you are a team, like Houston, who just did exactly that.

 

I am fine with riding out this team with what they have. It's a lot of fun with the group they still have, and will be a lot more when it's guys like Romero, Gonsalves, Gordon, and maybe Rooker coming up to bolster the roster of what they already have, instead of not existing because they traded them off to "finish off" a team that wasn't realistically that good yet.

I'm not sure the complaint is that they didn't go for it, as in all in, it's that they didn't do anything at this deadline. While it disappoints me some, I'm also fine letting it ride, as you say. At this point there's no choice but to do that. Yes, perhaps this wasn't the year to go for a Verlander type, but a bat or a RP seemed plausible and yet didn't do even that. Not sure what attempts were/weren't made, though, so I'll expend my energy cheering and save the grumbling in hindsight, even though there's no way of knowing for sure if any addition would have made the difference, for when it's over.

[Steve Lein]

 

I agree with most of this, actually.

 

But I also believe there's a difference between "do nothing" and "do something". A small move or two that improves the 2017 squad was in order, in my opinion.

 

Unless the front office believes they won't be able to get a Vargas or Darvish this offseason. Then it makes more sense to be aggressive and have pursued someone like Verlander.

 

Lots of options depending on perspective. I just want the team to be better at the end of the day.

 

I wouldn't have minded another bullpen arm for sure. Maybe keeping Garcia would have worked out.

 

But those are the types of those moves I would have liked, too. Not the trade top prospects to get a big name type for this year.

[old nurse]

 

I think we'll just disagree on this. IMO, when a team is in a legit playoff race, you go get better. As a fan of this team since forever, I really don't want them to not finish off teams, like the previous GM did in the 2000s.

 

People can say "well, they'll be more ready in a year or two to do that"....remember when M&M were going to carry the Twins, and we should just wait a year or two? Players get hurt. Players under perform. Other teams also get better and add players. There are always reasons, ignoring the context of the current moment in a vacuum, to do nothing or make an individual decision. When the decision happens over and over, it is a process, and not a decision, and it becomes how a company operates. Like chief, I had hoped with a new GM, things would change. So far, there is no evidence that is true. They didn't sign many FAs, despite having the worst pitching around, and they didn't acquire players at either deadline to try to win.

 

Maybe next year will be different, but this year sure isn't. avaial

Which starters were available  that had passed through waivers was going to make a difference? Which relievers?  You can ask for what was not there, but it is not going to do much good.  One of the front office wizards was quoted as saying they had put in a lot of claims. Likely it would have been the same for other teams as well to do the same. What would be available are the large contracts like Cueto and Leake, or the mediocre like the guy who went to Texas.  Relievers is anybodies guess as to what was available. The back of the bullpen could have been improved, but I doubt that they would be any different than Boshers for what was available.

[laloesch]

 

That's not true at all. According to Forbes, in 2016 (based on 2015 revenue), the Astros valuation was #15 in baseball. That was the Astros' return to relevance year and their attendance is +4,000 per game this season and surely set to rise next season again.

 

When the Astros made their last run in the early to mid 2000s, they had payrolls in the top half of baseball, sometimes top 10 IIRC.

 

Houston is a freakin' huge market, which should be in our consciousness right now considering all that is happening down there.

 

edit: Found Forbes' 2017 numbers (based on 2016 revenue) and the Astros jumped two spots up to #13.

 

Absolutely true.  Houston itself is over 2.3 million people and has more fortune 500 companies than every city except NY City.  They are in a honey hole for sure.

[laloesch]

 

I don't understand that thinking at all. Lets say we had a 23 million dollar first baseman that is way over paid and everybody thinks said first baseman is rapidly declining. Wouldn't the best thing to do is trade that first basemen in the division, thus weakening the division team going forward?

I also find it interesting that a 75% Verlander might be the absolute ceiling for all but one or two of our minor league pitchers and we/some (TD) aren't interested?

 

What do you mean you don't understand that thinking at all?  You don't trade your ace starting pitcher to a division rival thereby possibly making them that much stronger.  When have we ever seen such a blatant move?  

 

First of all a 1st baseman and a starting pitcher are like comparing apples to oranges.  Ace starting pitchers are a rare RARE comodity and Mauer sure as hell aint' an ace starting pitcher.  Two: Mauer has been in steep decline post concussion from his 2009/2010 peak for a long time now.  Verlander in contrast has only shown a few issues the last couple of years but is still pitching more or less like an ace for the Tigers, errr Astros.  

 

Not equivalent at all.  Other than their outrageous salaries nothing else in common at all.  By the way what does Mauer have to do with this?   The reason i am against this move is that he's already 34 years old and still has 2, potentially 3 years of 22-28 million a year left on his deal.  Too much.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What do you mean you don't understand that thinking at all?  You don't trade your ace starting pitcher to a division rival thereby possibly making them that much stronger.  When have we ever seen such a blatant move?  

 

First of all a 1st baseman and a starting pitcher are like comparing apples to oranges.  Ace starting pitchers are a rare RARE comodity and Mauer sure as hell aint' an ace starting pitcher.  Two: Mauer has been in steep decline post concussion from his 2009/2010 peak for a long time now.  Verlander in contrast has only shown a few issues the last couple of years but is still pitching more or less like an ace for the Tigers, errr Astros.  

 

Not equivalent at all.  Other than their outrageous salaries nothing else in common at all.  By the way what does Mauer have to do with this?   The reason i am against this move is that he's already 34 years old and still has 2, potentially 3 years of 22-28 million a year left on his deal.  Too much.

 

so what's your plan, if you won't pay guys past 34, to get good pitching here?

 

edit: the third year kicks in if he's a Cy Young caliber player, that concerns you?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

so what's your plan, if you won't pay guys past 34, to get good pitching here?

 

edit: the third year kicks in if he's a Cy Young caliber player, that concerns you?

Yeah, the third year is a non-issue. If he's still that good in 2019, you want to keep the guy anyway.

 

The real concern is before that, in my opinion.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, the third year is a non-issue. If he's still that good in 2019, you want to keep the guy anyway.

 

The real concern is before that, in my opinion.

 

don't get me wrong, I'm not sure Verlander is the answer.....but with all the reasons not to add players that have been posted in this thread, if the Twins listened, they'd never add a player from outside.

[USAFChief]

What do you mean you don't understand that thinking at all? You don't trade your ace starting pitcher to a division rival thereby possibly making them that much stronger. When have we ever seen such a blatant move?

 

First of all a 1st baseman and a starting pitcher are like comparing apples to oranges. Ace starting pitchers are a rare RARE comodity and Mauer sure as hell aint' an ace starting pitcher. Two: Mauer has been in steep decline post concussion from his 2009/2010 peak for a long time now. Verlander in contrast has only shown a few issues the last couple of years but is still pitching more or less like an ace for the Tigers, errr Astros.

 

Not equivalent at all. Other than their outrageous salaries nothing else in common at all. By the way what does Mauer have to do with this? The reason i am against this move is that he's already 34 years old and still has 2, potentially 3 years of 22-28 million a year left on his deal. Too much.

Verlander goes from an ace in paragraph one to too old and expensive in paragraph three.

 

He's aging fast.

[Tomj14]

 

What do you mean you don't understand that thinking at all?  You don't trade your ace starting pitcher to a division rival thereby possibly making them that much stronger.  When have we ever seen such a blatant move?  

 

First of all a 1st baseman and a starting pitcher are like comparing apples to oranges.  Ace starting pitchers are a rare RARE comodity and Mauer sure as hell aint' an ace starting pitcher.  Two: Mauer has been in steep decline post concussion from his 2009/2010 peak for a long time now.  Verlander in contrast has only shown a few issues the last couple of years but is still pitching more or less like an ace for the Tigers, errr Astros.  

 

Not equivalent at all.  Other than their outrageous salaries nothing else in common at all.  By the way what does Mauer have to do with this?   The reason i am against this move is that he's already 34 years old and still has 2, potentially 3 years of 22-28 million a year left on his deal.  Too much.

You kind of proved my point, Verlander is still really good, others are saying he is too old and not good enough to pay or trade prospects for.

Any team that won't trade a guy to a team in the same division isn't saying he is washed up or no good, they are saying we are in rebuilding and can't spend that much money on one player or this is our best chance for prospects. (Those are the pitchers the twins need now)

I brought Mauer up indirectly because the last few years it would have been foolish to not trade him to a division team, with his contract and declining skills it would have been in the Twins best interest to straddle a division team with him and that contract.

Finally good luck getting a pitcher regardless of age that will produce what Verlander produces the next two years for any price.

[drjim]

In regards to the non-moves yesterday: Chip-on-your-shoulder Twins looked really good after the July deadline. Maybe doubling down on that chip will keep the fire going.

 

Not that I at all think that went into anyone's decisions yesterday.

Imagine the run they'd go on if they traded another reliever yesterday.

[drjim]

I think we'll just disagree on this. IMO, when a team is in a legit playoff race, you go get better. As a fan of this team since forever, I really don't want them to not finish off teams, like the previous GM did in the 2000s.

 

People can say "well, they'll be more ready in a year or two to do that"....remember when M&M were going to carry the Twins, and we should just wait a year or two? Players get hurt. Players under perform. Other teams also get better and add players. There are always reasons, ignoring the context of the current moment in a vacuum, to do nothing or make an individual decision. When the decision happens over and over, it is a process, and not a decision, and it becomes how a company operates. Like chief, I had hoped with a new GM, things would change. So far, there is no evidence that is true. They didn't sign many FAs, despite having the worst pitching around, and they didn't acquire players at either deadline to try to win.

 

Maybe next year will be different, but this year sure isn't.

Twins blew it by not adding Leake.

[drjim]

I'm not sure the complaint is that they didn't go for it, as in all in, it's that they didn't do anything at this deadline. While it disappoints me some, I'm also fine letting it ride, as you say. At this point there's no choice but to do that. Yes, perhaps this wasn't the year to go for a Verlander type, but a bat or a RP seemed plausible and yet didn't do even that. Not sure what attempts were/weren't made, though, so I'll expend my energy cheering and save the grumbling in hindsight, even though there's no way of knowing for sure if any addition would have made the difference, for when it's over.

Considering what actually moved this month, a RP of consequence wasn't possible. Probably could have gotten a bat.