IMO, this is why you acquire SP from outside

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I read all the time "you can't sign a FA pitcher, he'll be too old by the end"......or "only 1/3 of FA pitchers work out, they are a bad investment"......or "you can't trade prospects, because you want the team to compete EVERY year". Lots of people are arguing hard against solutions that are not 1 year, or are cheap so you keep your financial flexibility, which you never use (as above)......

 

What are the odds a 1 year, make good, deal works out for that one year? Then, what do you do the next year, if you won't sign older players long term?

 

Fair I suppose, but I think you're arguing against a generalization that very few people here are making.

 

I think most of us are fine getting a FA, but recognizing the risks of each scenario doesn't mean we are against it. The argument has more to do with what type of FA. Me personally, get the best if you are going to spend, but even in that scenario, you're likely going to be dealing with an Anibel Sanchez type situation towards the end of the deal. Those Nolasco/Santana/Hughes deals come with A LOT of risk and not enough reward to mitigate against it. While I'd prefer to do that, I think most would trade for the right package too. We have a surplus in SS types and even a surplus in AA/AAA pitching. If you can get a high upside guy controlled for 3 years on a package that includes Gordon/Gonsalves, most would do it. It's not my first choice, but I'd do it.

 

As for the one year deal, I'd say higher than you think. You get someone coming back from injury. Plenty of teams will offer a 3 year deal at a much lower than market rate, or you get a guy willing to bet on himself. It makes sense. With as many arms in AA/AAA that should be ready to help during next season, this is a decent option too, though I do agree that you are replacing this guy and ESAN in 2019, and might find yourself doing the same thing.

 

 

[drjim]

 

Maybe, maybe not. But the issue Mike brought up was how many teams could consistently create good rotations without free agency. I brought up the Twins themselves. 

 

It was obviously carried for a while by having the best pitcher in baseball for a handful of years. Not easy to replicate that. Would have been that much better with 1 or 2 FA supplments throughout the decade instead of the slop they would throw out at the backend.

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't like this story anymore.  MSP is about 15th largest market in the country.  Many other markets support multiple teams.  Additionally, a lot of markets larger than Minneapolis/St. Paul are no where near as economically sound.  Add in the fact the Pohlads are one of the wealthier ownership groups in baseball and the team still has a new stadium likely generating revenue and you should expect to be a top 10 payroll team especially when the team is now in it's window for winning.  If they ever were to spend money, it would be now.

 

It's never as simple as looking at the DMA and saying the Twins Cities are the 15th largest market. 

 

Baseball is regional. 

 

Seattle is 14th

Portland is 25th

 

Seattle gets both markets. 

 

This is why the Orioles were upset about the Nationals moving to DC from Montreal. 

 

The Twins don't have a Portland... They have a Little Falls. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Maybe, maybe not. But the issue Mike brought up was how many teams could consistently create good rotations without free agency. I brought up the Twins themselves. 

 

Well, that was mostly laziness in the list, trying to figure out who was "traded" for, since I figure if they are traded for but spend time in the minors here, it's different than a veteran traded for......and I didn't want to get into pedantic arguments over that.....

 

And, in the years you mention, there are a good number of games started by traded for guys that were veterans when they got to MN. And even some of those years were more lean than I thought for good SP.

[gunnarthor]

 

It was obviously carried for a while by having the best pitcher in baseball for a handful of years. Not easy to replicate that. Would have been that much better with 1 or 2 FA supplments throughout the decade instead of the slop they would throw out at the backend.

Sure, Santana was great but they had solid rotations. Ignoring Santana, they still managed 20 individual 2+ WAR seasons in those years. Radke was a great pitcher - he actually has more seasons in top 10 pWAR than Santana. I mean, the Twins won only 83 games in 2005 but they had maybe the best pitching staff in baseball. Lohse, Silva, Radke and Santana all made at least 27 starts and were worth at least 2.5 WAR. (The bullpen was killer too, the team had a 120 OPS+). So I don't think it's true that they were throwing out slop - sure, they pitching took a dip toward the end of the decade but that really was a strong run of pitching. The rip on the Twins used to be that they couldn't develop hitters.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

And, in the years you mention, there are a good number of games started by traded for guys that were veterans when they got to MN. And even some of those years were more lean than I thought for good SP.

Sure, they traded for guys like Silva and Lohse but they weren't paying these guys FA money. I don't think there was any guy they traded for who was a big money acquisition. They traded for cheap arms and arms under lots of team control. Rick Reed might be the lone exception?

[Loosey]

 

It's never as simple as looking at the DMA and saying the Twins Cities are the 15th largest market. 

 

Baseball is regional. 

 

Seattle is 14th

Portland is 25th

 

Seattle gets both markets. 

 

This is why the Orioles were upset about the Nationals moving to DC from Montreal. 

 

The Twins don't have a Portland... They have a Little Falls. 

And Sioux Falls and Des Moines and Fargo . . .  It's not Portland, but those are cities.  But I get your point.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's never as simple as looking at the DMA and saying the Twins Cities are the 15th largest market. 

 

Baseball is regional. 

 

Seattle is 14th

Portland is 25th

 

Seattle gets both markets. 

 

This is why the Orioles were upset about the Nationals moving to DC from Montreal. 

 

The Twins don't have a Portland... They have a Little Falls. 

 

yo, at least 4 of us (once Bob moves here) would like to beg to differ......

 

but I agree with your point totally.

[nicksaviking]

That is true about Lynn, but realistically what caliber of player do you expect to become available over the next couple of years? He'll be one of the top 7-8 pitchers (at worst) that can be signed in the next two seasons.

 

There will be plenty of top quality SP available the next couple of years who at this moment we don't recognize as top quality SP, surely plenty better than Lance Lynn as well. It's incumbent upon our highly praised young GM to identify and get them. There are Arrietas and Klubers and Strailys out there.

[USAFChief]

 

It wasn't because of the rotation though, was it?

 

It's also a really stupid way to troll threads. "Yeah the Twins were able to be constantly good for nearly a decade on no payroll because they didn't waste money on free agent starters and have a lot of sunk costs"  "Ergh, statement invalid, they didn't win in post-season." 

I guess that depends on your definition of consistently good.  

 

And I'd dispute the claim that the rotation played no role.  In 2002   they gave up 26 runs in a five game series (their last postseason win) and 27 while losing in five.

 

2003:  16 runs in losing 3-1.  You might make the claim here that the rotation wasn't a real concern.

 

2004:  21 runs in losing 3-1 (after posting a shutout in game 1).

 

2006:  16 runs in losing 3-0.

 

2009:  15 runs, lost 3-0.

 

2010:  17 runs, lost 3-0

 

The Twins gave postseason starts twice to Boof Bonser, Nick Blackburn, a one-armed Brad Radke, Carlos Silva, and twice to Brian Duensing, among others.  

 

There were consistent calls for the Twins to add a top line starter throughout that decade.

 

So yeah, I think not adding through Free Agency likely hurt the Twins, and was a factor in their lack of post season success.

 

[yarnivek1972]

Of course it is better to be a mythical organization that develops all it's own talent and doesn't sign any FA or trade for anyone. But, that organization does not exist.

Please don't change my words to fit your narrative.   I said the Twins (and frankly most MLB teams) can't afford to build "THE BULK" of their staff via FA.  Sure, the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox with $ 250 mil payrolls can.  Nor did I say never trade for anyone.  If you want to debate my actual words, let me know.

 

 

and what does "over pay" mean, if that is the price every year? That's the market price. Paying market price is pretty much by definition not over paying, isn't it?

Had to do a little math here, so it may not be 100% accurate.  Should be pretty close though.

 

Nolasco was signed to a 4 year, $ 48 mil contract after the 2013 season.  He had a career bWAR of 10.1 at the time.

 

Phil Hughes' initial contract was 3 years and $ 24 mil, also after the 2013 season.  He had a career bWAR of 6.3.  Not as good, thus much cheaper. But also 3 years younger.  Nolasco got double the money, but he was not twice as good of a pitcher after 2013.  Nolasco overpaid exhibit one.

 

Ervin Santana signed a 4 year $ 55 mil contract after 2014. He had a career bWAR of 16.9 at the time.  Adjusted for the general increase of salaries from 2014 to 2015,  Ervin and Ricky basically got the same money.  Ervin had a far better career track record.  Nolasco overpaid exhibit two.

[old nurse]

 

This team needs a couple of starters, in order to compete deep in the post-season.  One at least at the Berrios level and one higher.  Can they get one of the two in 2018 (any part of the season) from inside the organization?   Unlikely.  Both Romero and Gonsalves (check his AAA numbers) took a step backwards this season.  Littel needs at least half a season of AA to prove himself.  May is a question mark and Hughes is done.   So not much inside, thus they have to look outside, both in trades and free agency, but the key is not to get pitchers at the Berrios level or lower...

J O Berrios's numbers took a step back at levels. How did that work out?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Please don't change my words to fit your narrative.   I said the Twins (and frankly most MLB teams) can't afford to build "THE BULK" of their staff via FA.  Sure, the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox with $ 250 mil payrolls can.  Nor did I say never trade for anyone.  If you want to debate my actual words, let me know.
 
 
Had to do a little math here, so it may not be 100% accurate.  Should be pretty close though.
 
Nolasco was signed to a 4 year, $ 48 mil contract after the 2013 season.  He had a career bWAR of 10.1 at the time.
 
Phil Hughes' initial contract was 3 years and $ 24 mil, also after the 2013 season.  He had a career bWAR of 6.3.  Not as good, thus much cheaper. But also 3 years younger.  Nolasco got double the money, but he was not twice as good of a pitcher after 2013.  Nolasco overpaid exhibit one.
 
Ervin Santana signed a 4 year $ 55 mil contract after 2014. He had a career bWAR of 16.9 at the time.  Adjusted for the general increase of salaries from 2014 to 2015,  Ervin and Ricky basically got the same money.  Ervin had a far better career track record.  Nolasco overpaid exhibit two.

 

no one is arguing to build the bulk of their team in FA, so I don't know what you are arguing.

 

As for your math, if you won't pay market prices (with the risk you don't get the WAR you want back), you won't sign FA to multi year deals. In no instance did the Twins pay more than other similar deals.

[Tomj14]

My two cents on the topic.

There is really only one FA pitcher I want this year. Davish

There are a couple I am OK with but not at the expected price (18 million give or take). Cobb and Lynn

There are a couple I wouldn't mind spending just enough on, that if they suck they can be cut or demoted ASAP.

 

So I am willing to bite the bullet and go all in on a trade. Just about any of the Met's starters, Cole, and Archer. I am willing to give up 3/4 prospects to get them, Basically saying you can choose any two of our top 5. and two more from 10 - 20, and somebody below 30.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

I guess that depends on your definition of consistently good.  

 

And I'd dispute the claim that the rotation played no role.  In 2002   they gave up 26 runs in a five game series (their last postseason win) and 27 while losing in five.

 

2003:  16 runs in losing 3-1.  You might make the claim here that the rotation wasn't a real concern.

 

2004:  21 runs in losing 3-1 (after posting a shutout in game 1).

 

2006:  16 runs in losing 3-0.

 

2009:  15 runs, lost 3-0.

 

2010:  17 runs, lost 3-0

 

The Twins gave postseason starts twice to Boof Bonser, Nick Blackburn, a one-armed Brad Radke, Carlos Silva, and twice to Brian Duensing, among others.  

 

There were consistent calls for the Twins to add a top line starter throughout that decade.

 

So yeah, I think not adding through Free Agency likely hurt the Twins, and was a factor in their lack of post season success.

It wasn't the rotation that was the problem, it was the bullpen. Radke, Mays, Milton all pitched well in the 02 postseason and 03 as well as you noted.  04 got two good starts out of Santana and a bad one out of Silva and Radke.  06 got two good starts from Santana and Boof and a bad start from a broken Radke.  09 both Blackburn and Pavano pitched well against the Yankees. Duensing did not. But 2010 was three bad starts in a three game sweep.

 

And the consistent calls to add a top line starter was unrealistic then as it now. The 2000 era Twins could never bring on that kind of payroll. It was like guys wishing we signed Max Scherzer now. 

[USAFChief]

 

It's never as simple as looking at the DMA and saying the Twins Cities are the 15th largest market. 

 

Baseball is regional. 

 

Seattle is 14th

Portland is 25th

 

Seattle gets both markets. 

 

This is why the Orioles were upset about the Nationals moving to DC from Montreal. 

 

The Twins don't have a Portland... They have a Little Falls. 

Forbes estimates the Mariners' 2017 revenue at $289M, the Twins at $249M.

 

FWIW, that puts the Mariners in 13th place, the Twins 23nd, in terms of revenue, if I counted correctly

.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

 

[gunnarthor]

 

Forbes estimates the Mariners' 2017 revenue at $289M, the Twins at $249M.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

If that's true and IF the Twins still make payroll 52 percent of revenue, that would put payroll near 130m - which would mean the Twins could feasibly add 40m in free agents and/or trade contracts this offseason.

 

I'd be stunned if that actually was our payroll.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It wasn't the rotation that was the problem, it was the bullpen. Radke, Mays, Milton all pitched well in the 02 postseason and 03 as well as you noted.  04 got two good starts out of Santana and a bad one out of Silva and Radke.  06 got two good starts from Santana and Boof and a bad start from a broken Radke.  09 both Blackburn and Pavano pitched well against the Yankees. Duensing did not. But 2010 was three bad starts in a three game sweep.

 

And the consistent calls to add a top line starter was unrealistic then as it now. The 2000 era Twins could never bring on that kind of payroll. It was like guys wishing we signed Max Scherzer now. 

 

they could have afforded Cliff Lee....no problem. they didn't manage to pull that off, for whatever reason.

 

There's always a reason they can't trade/sign/add.......always. Clearly some fans don't agree that it's always the case.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If that's true and IF the Twins still make payroll 52 percent of revenue, that would put payroll near 130m - which would mean the Twins could feasibly add 40m in free agents and/or trade contracts this offseason.

 

I'd be stunned if that actually was our payroll.

 

we all would.

[gunnarthor]

 

they could have afforded Cliff Lee....no problem. they didn't manage to pull that off, for whatever reason.

 

There's always a reason they can't trade/sign/add.......always. Clearly some fans don't agree that it's always the case.

Seattle preferred Texas' offer.

[USAFChief]

 

If that's true and IF the Twins still make payroll 52 percent of revenue, that would put payroll near 130m - which would mean the Twins could feasibly add 40m in free agents and/or trade contracts this offseason.

 

I'd be stunned if that actually was our payroll.

They also estimate the Twins will turn an operating profit near $30M this year.

 

So let's make payroll $140.

[yarnivek1972]

I have no problem going after a top FA starter. I just don’t see that as improvement sufficient enough to close the gap between the Twins and the teams still competing in the postseason. And as I said to make the two bullpen additions that MIGHT close the gap probably doesn’t fit the budget. Probably be about $10 mil or so over what I expect MLB payroll budget to be. Might the Pohlads open the vault knowing this could be Mauer’s last year? Perhaps. Could the Twins save some payroll by trading for bullpen help? Perhaps. But why is any team going to trade away a good to great reliever who is inexpensive?

[old nurse]

 

And they won one postseason series.  

09 and 10 you could reasonably say they lost because of pitching. Not any of the other series.  The tired refrain of pitching costing them series is just not true.  There were far too many series where their bats did not come through, or Santana, Reed or Radke had a bad game.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have no problem going after a top FA starter. I just don’t see that as improvement sufficient enough to close the gap between the Twins and the teams still competing in the postseason. And as I said to make the two bullpen additions that MIGHT close the gap probably doesn’t fit the budget. Probably be about $10 mil or so over what I expect MLB payroll budget to be. Might the Pohlads open the vault knowing this could be Mauer’s last year? Perhaps. Could the Twins save some payroll by trading for bullpen help? Perhaps. But why is any team going to trade away a good to great reliever who is inexpensive?

 

why not try to get better, and see if luck happens? I'd rather that than "they can't catch up to the big teams, so save the money for later", which seems to be the argument here many years. Saving the money for later literally only puts money in the owners' pockets, it does not mean they spend more money later. 

[yarnivek1972]

Maybe the answer is get the starter and one bullpen piece. No idea what might be out there in terms of names. Kintzler is a decent pitcher, but he’s certainly not a shut down closer or even what I would consider a top late inning reliever. Point being, aim higher. Anyway, that should fit the budget. See what happens and perhaps be in position to trade for a reliever in July, or earlier if it appears to be worth it.

[kellyvance]

You guys are making a simple thing difficult.

It is simply about winning playoff games. 

Look, to go deep into the playoffs you need a stud #1 and a good #2 and they need to be money when it matters most. Your hitters need to come through but if you can get 5 shutout innings from a SP, you have a shot. 

So I see Erv as a solid 2.  Twins should go for it and get a Lee or Sales kind of guy. Because that is where the playoff wins are.

Payroll be damned. This is about a franchise making a move to rise above mediocre.Twins leadership makes 30 million a year by being mediocre. You need a more inspiring owner that than.

 

Say what you want about Steinbrenner. He went for it. And winning starts at the top. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Forbes estimates the Mariners' 2017 revenue at $289M, the Twins at $249M.

 

FWIW, that puts the Mariners in 13th place, the Twins 23nd, in terms of revenue, if I counted correctly

.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

 

The Twins have not spent up to their potential under Terry Ryan. 

 

Under Bill Smith I think they were close. 

 

I've been willing to give Terry Ryan the slightest of pass for two reasons. 

 

1. The team hasn't looked augmentable (I may have made that word up) in the past 5 or 6 years. 

2. I'm not always convinced that Money is the answer.

 

Fast forward to today. I believe that we should spend some money on the pitching side to try and match the potential of our offensive side. I think the team should be around 130 or 140 million. Anything less will be disappointing... in my opinion.  

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I guess that depends on your definition of consistently good.

 

And I'd dispute the claim that the rotation played no role. In 2002 they gave up 26 runs in a five game series (their last postseason win) and 27 while losing in five.

 

2003: 16 runs in losing 3-1. You might make the claim here that the rotation wasn't a real concern.

 

2004: 21 runs in losing 3-1 (after posting a shutout in game 1).

 

2006: 16 runs in losing 3-0.

 

2009: 15 runs, lost 3-0.

 

2010: 17 runs, lost 3-0

 

The Twins gave postseason starts twice to Boof Bonser, Nick Blackburn, a one-armed Brad Radke, Carlos Silva, and twice to Brian Duensing, among others.

 

There were consistent calls for the Twins to add a top line starter throughout that decade.

 

So yeah, I think not adding through Free Agency likely hurt the Twins, and was a factor in their lack of post season success.

it always seemed to me that the Twins won the season because the back end of the rotation was above average, but lost the post season short series because they lacked the high end front of the rotation.

 

This confirms it. Thank you

[jctwins]

 

That is true about Lynn, but realistically what caliber of player do you expect to become available over the next couple of years? He'll be one of the top 7-8 pitchers (at worst) that can be signed in the next two seasons.

 

And the Pohlads aren't cheap. They're perfectly normal baseball owners. The front office has more than enough resources if they use them decently well.

 

Many things about the way they run the club really piss me off, but this statement is very true.

[Major League Ready]

I would not be surprised to see $130M payroll.  The organization certainly understands the need for pitching.  This FO office also understands the implications of trading away multiple assets with 6 years of control.   Prospects are risky but 3 or 4 of them mitigate risk whereas one player can get injured or simply not perform as expected.  Developing players to the point of being major league ready or even better establishing those players at the ML level dramatically increases their trade value and provides the opportunities to shape the roster.  

 

Offering market price is by no means a guarantee of getting any of the highly sought after FAs.  They have their choice of where they want to play.  However, keeping numerous prospects who eventually provide low cost production off-sets the cost of these FAs if just one of those prospects produces at the ML level.  Lavine learned about asset management and the value of developing players/assets in Cleveland.  They will pick the approach with a higher probability of producing wins or WaR if you prefer.  The Pohlads understand asset management, valuations, and probabilities.  I just think the approach used by our new FO will translate into plan to acquire talent that makes sense to ownership.  More confidence from ownership likely means a little more willingness is participate in free agency.

 

Keeping the prospects also provides a low cost way to replace Santana, Dozier and Mauer in the near future.  (perhaps they extend Mauer)  Using free agency to upgrade SP instead of paying the very high cost in prospects required to get front-line SP is a more probable path to contention for an extended period of time.  It’s not too hard to chart a path to contention using free agency for SP now and then using the salaries from contracts expiring 2018-19 to extend our core.  They still need a couple SP and bullpen prospects to work-out but we have enough prospects that it is reasonable to expect some ML players from the group.