Don’t hold your breath Twins fans

[drivlikejehu]

I think MLR is correct, but I'd add the caveat that a big signing could still make sense for the 2018 Twins based on their long-term payroll commitments (i.e., the complete lack thereof). 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

I am not sure where you are going with this ... Mike's position is that the Twins can't be successful without playing in the high end" of free agents.  Neither the Royals or the Indians got there best players via top end free agents. 

 

If your point is the Twins don't have assets to trade and the only way to get there is free Agents, I would remind you that the trades that catapulted the Indians were trades for under valued assets like Kluber and Bauer.  They did not trade up top tier assets to acquire them.  There other top players were drafted or international signings.

 

The Shields trade did not put the Royals over the top.  They did not make the playoffs the 1st year and were a wildcard team that got hot the 2nd year.  They were still on the rise when that trade was made and were definitely better after he left.

 

Am I not understanding something else you are trying to bring to light?

 

Mike's position was Twins need to pay high end free agents

 

your response was Indians and Royals didn't so neither do the Twins

 

My eeling is the Royals and Indians were in different situations and had results that are not replicateable.

 

Trevor Bauer was a jerk, but thought of as an ACE in the making. http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5493

 

Kluber was traded in 2010 and became an impact pitcher to the Indians in 2013.

 

Shields was a 6 player trade

 

Citing those 3 as examples is unrealistic for the Twins. Kluber trade is hopeful but to plan on getting the next Klber out of a AA trade is unrealistic. I think a trade would be acceptable, but need a free agent for the immediate pitching needs as well. They can't go into 2018 with the rotation as is. They have to do something.

[Major League Ready]

 

Mike's position was Twins need to pay high end free agents

 

your response was Indians and Royals didn't so neither do the Twins

 

My eeling is the Royals and Indians were in different situations and had results that are not replicateable.

 

Trevor Bauer was a jerk, but thought of as an ACE in the making. http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5493

 

Kluber was traded in 2010 and became an impact pitcher to the Indians in 2013.

 

Shields was a 6 player trade

 

Citing those 3 as examples is unrealistic for the Twins. Kluber trade is hopeful but to plan on getting the next Klber out of a AA trade is unrealistic. I think a trade would be acceptable, but need a free agent for the immediate pitching needs as well. They can't go into 2018 with the rotation as is. They have to do something.

 

I see your point but the scenarios are never go to be exactly the same.  I think in a macro sense the Shields trade has to value in terms of validating this comparison.  As a matter of fact, they were better after Shields was gone.  If anything it is evidence that their team was still developing as I believe to be the case with the Twins. 

 

You certainly have a point about the good fortune of having Kluber blossom into a star.  We have a lot pf assets with this potential.  The real problem here is that a lot of people want it IMMEDIATELY.  That would be nice but if it were realistic the balance of power would be constantly shifting.  The process is can expedited when a team has great revenue but they most influential variable is the development of talent even for teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs.  Even with there enormous revenue the players putting them at the top are primarily home grown.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I see your point but the scenarios are never go to be exactly the same. I think in a macro sense the Shields trade has to value in terms of validating this comparison. As a matter of fact, they were better after Shields was gone. If anything it is evidence that their team was still developing as I believe to be the case with the Twins.

 

You certainly have a point about the good fortune of having Kluber blossom into a star. We have a lot pf assets with this potential. The real problem here is that a lot of people want it IMMEDIATELY. That would be nice but if it were realistic the balance of power would be constantly shifting. The process is can expedited when a team has great revenue but they most influential variable is the development of talent even for teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs. Even with there enormous revenue the players putting them at the top are primarily home grown.

they do need to immediately improve the rotation. That’s why I feel free agency is the preferred method this offseason, to give those prospects a chance to continue growth in the Twins system.

 

Right now payroll for next season looks to be about 70 mil. They’ve got the room

[jimmer]

KC got to the W Series WITH Shields.  They never get to the playoffs that year without him and Davis. Oh yeah, let's remember WADE DAVIS was part of that trade too.

 

That was a very important trade for the team.

 

And yes, the Twins needs to immediately improve the rotation and not waste any more of Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, Rosario and Polanco.

[KirbyDome89]

KC is a great example of what refusing to play on the high end i.e. expanding payroll will do. They're just a few years removed from back to back WS appearances and already an afterthought. Kudos to them for drafting and developing all that young talent, not to mention the trades and starting the "super pen," phenomena. It's honestly sad to see them fighting to keep one of Moustakas, Cain, and Hosmer, with Davis and Holland already out the door. That was a team that could've been a serious contender for at least 5 years had they decided to keep some of that talent. They certainly maxed out their window of contention, but as a Twins fan I want more than a few years of contention. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Yes, this.

 

And it wouldn't be breaking the mold. There's a new mold. The mold has changed in a number of ways, and it isn't solely related to the regime change. First and foremost, the "window" is an undeniable reality now. It can't be argued. Second, it could hardly be more obvious that a front-line starter is a necessity (on paper, always on paper) in order to remain as a viable wild card aspirant. Remember that in past years, one front-line starter would not have been enough. Third, both of the ways to pay for said pitcher, cash or prospects, are now finally available within some reasonable set of restraints. 

 

I've been critical of both the new and the old regimes for their failures to make bolder moves, front-line relievers in particular for years in a row. I have not been critical about avoiding cash or prospect exchanges for a front-line starter because in the past the conditions described above have not been there.

 

I'll be critical of the FO if they fail to acquire a front-line (better than or equal to what they have now as the #1 and 2 starters) starter before spring training. I'm encouraged by the signs Jim Pohlad has given us, although I'd like him to somehow acknowledge the existence of "retained earnings" from past years when they spent less than 50% of revenue on player personnel that are available for the FO should they need to go "over budget" to get the job done. My personal opinion is they have a perfect opportunity here to remove some of the rubble left over from previous PR blunders by signing Darvish, and that it would be cash well-spent.

 

This is exactly how I feel but better because I assume your use of punctuation is probably how it was intended to be used. 

 

 

[bird]

 

This is exactly how I feel but better because I assume your use of punctuation is probably how it was intended to be used. 

 

Interesting. I just re-read what I typed and didn't understand a word of it and feel nothing.

[Darius]

Here's the thing. No Twins GM has ever said they'd sign a top free agent. Ever. Both Levine and Ryan have said similar things about payroll - stay within limits, build up a better farm/analytic department, look for good fits in FA. But every year, fans get super excited about a big name free agent signing here and then blame the GM when they don't get him.

It's out there that Twins officials are saying that they're serious about Darvish, and that he's their priority (I believe I've heard that on Bonnes' podcast recently, to be specific) .

 

So yes, they are responsible for getting the fans worked up on this one.

 

They also never said they wouldn't sign any major free agents. Kind of ridiculous to say you won't sign Big free agents, then come out later and say the top free agent pitcher on the market is a priority, no?

 

They express interest in these free agents in the offseason as a PR/marketing ploy. I don't doubt that you're "quote," is reality. But, that then means they're lying to their fan base about genuine interest to stay in the media. That's way worse, IMO, than just being cheap.

[Darius]

KC is a great example of what refusing to play on the high end i.e. expanding payroll will do. They're just a few years removed from back to back WS appearances and already an afterthought. Kudos to them for drafting and developing all that young talent, not to mention the trades and starting the "super pen," phenomena. It's honestly sad to see them fighting to keep one of Moustakas, Cain, and Hosmer, with Davis and Holland already out the door. That was a team that could've been a serious contender for at least 5 years had they decided to keep some of that talent. They certainly maxed out their window of contention, but as a Twins fan I want more than a few years of contention.

Agreed. Not to mention, it's a total anomole that they even made it to that level of success in the first place. Some fans see that happen (or the Astros) and interpret it as spending is bad, and it's inevitable that all somewhat draft saavy small market teams will get there.

 

One: For every small market team that has pulled off season a like that, there are hundreds or more that haven't.

 

Two: Those franchises endured decades a total ineptitude (we think 4-5 years is bad) before stumbling into a crop of prospects so good that they couldn't help but win.

 

I'll pass on that approach.

[Major League Ready]

 

KC is a great example of what refusing to play on the high end i.e. expanding payroll will do. They're just a few years removed from back to back WS appearances and already an afterthought. Kudos to them for drafting and developing all that young talent, not to mention the trades and starting the "super pen," phenomena. It's honestly sad to see them fighting to keep one of Moustakas, Cain, and Hosmer, with Davis and Holland already out the door. That was a team that could've been a serious contender for at least 5 years had they decided to keep some of that talent. They certainly maxed out their window of contention, but as a Twins fan I want more than a few years of contention. 

 

The Royals were spending pretty much every dime of revenue they earned according to the revenue reports.  They did not refuse to play.  They could not afford to play at the high end.  Do you refuse to drive a 100,000 Mercedes or is the problem you can't pay for it? 

 

The Royals are a good example of going all-in trading away future assets for the right now and in the process shorting their window.  How can you possibly say they maximized or extended their window?  They had one wildcard year where they were a decent team that got hot for the playoffs followed by one dominant year.  The next two years they were 500 when their core was at the start of their prime years.  One dominant year is certainly not maximizing your window.

 

Jimmer is right that they never make the playoffs without Shields and Davis.  It’s also true they were a considerably better team the year after Shields left, They won the division and had one of the most dominant teams in MLB.  They did not even manage a wildcard spot the first year and only managed a wildcard spot the second year with Shields and were two innings away from getting absolutely nothing out of giving up 5 years of Myers and 6 years of Odorizzi.  They got a one-game playoff for Myers and Ordorizzi.  They made the most (almost) of that opportunity but you sure as hell don't trade those assets for a one-game playoff. I am sure someone will say they would but anyone who has ever run an organization would say never in a million years. They were a team on the rise that pushed their chips in a little early and expended to many assets to extend their window.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The Royals were spending pretty much every dime of revenue they earned according to the revenue reports.  They did not refuse to play.  They could not afford to play at the high end.  Do you refuse to drive a 100,000 Mercedes or is the problem you can't pay for it? 

 

The Royals are a good example of going all-in trading away future assets for the right now and in the process shorting their window.  How can you possibly say they maximized or extended their window?  They had one wildcard year where they were a decent team that got hot for the playoffs followed by one dominant year.  The next two years they were 500 when their core was at the start of their prime years.  One dominant year is certainly not maximizing your window.

 

Jimmer is right that they never make the playoffs without Shields and Davis.  It’s also true they were a considerably better team the year after Shields left, They won the division and had one of the most dominant teams in MLB.  They did not even manage a wildcard spot the first year and only managed a wildcard spot the second year with Shields and were two innings away from getting absolutely nothing out of giving up 5 years of Myers and 6 years of Odorizzi.  They got a one-game playoff for Myers and Ordorizzi.  They made the most (almost) of that opportunity but you sure as hell don't trade those assets for a one-game playoff. I am sure someone will say they would but anyone who has ever run an organization would say never in a million years. They were a team on the rise that pushed their chips in a little early and expended to many assets to extend their window.

They made $231 $273 and $246 million in revenue from 14'-16'. The highest their payroll reached was $112 million during that time. I think they had a few spare dimes to lock up some of those players that are now on their way out. 

 

Extended? Where did I say that? They absolutely did maximize it though. They were "a decent team that got hot," one year and a "dominant," team with a very similar roster the next season? Maybe they were just a good team that made two WS appearances in two years. Two of those core players in their prime, Cain and Moustakas, each missed significant time in 16' and they lost Ventura before the 17' season. Those events can't be foreseen at the time of the trade but even if we're counting it all against KC it's still 2 WS appearances and one title in 5 years. For a team that operates like KC that's the definition of maximization.  

 

What is this one game playoff nonsense? They got two very productive full seasons out of Shields, and he was there for the run to game 7 of the 14' WS. They had Davis until the end of the 16' season which includes the WS championship. No GM makes that move? I'll disagree. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I have decided to officially hold my breath. I put my thoughts down in a blog post as they would take up too much space here.

[old nurse]

 

They made $231 $273 and $246 million in revenue from 14'-16'. The highest their payroll reached was $112 million during that time. I think they had a few spare dimes to lock up some of those players that are now on their way out. 

 

Extended? Where did I say that? They absolutely did maximize it though. They were "a decent team that got hot," one year and a "dominant," team with a very similar roster the next season? Maybe they were just a good team that made two WS appearances in two years. Two of those core players in their prime, Cain and Moustakas, each missed significant time in 16' and they lost Ventura before the 17' season. Those events can't be foreseen at the time of the trade but even if we're counting it all against KC it's still 2 WS appearances and one title in 5 years. For a team that operates like KC that's the definition of maximization.  

 

What is this one game playoff nonsense? They got two very productive full seasons out of Shields, and he was there for the run to game 7 of the 14' WS. They had Davis until the end of the 16' season which includes the WS championship. No GM makes that move? I'll disagree. 

With an average ticket price of $30, a 20 M local tv deal the Royals would need to be making about $100000000 a year off concessions and parking for the revenue numbers to be accurate.

[KirbyDome89]

 

With an average ticket price of $30, a 20 M local tv deal the Royals would need to be making about $100000000 a year off concessions and parking for the revenue numbers to be accurate.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196662/revenue-of-the-kansas-city-royals/

[Squirrel]

I have decided to officially hold my breath. I put my thoughts down in a blog post as they would take up too much space here.

Good write up!

[Mike Sixel]

The most successful team of late in our revenue bracket has been Cleveland. Did they play in the high-end of the market? Certainly not in pitching. Yet, they are amongt the best in MLB. They did sign a couple of fairly expensive FA position players in Swisher and Bourne. Swisher was mediocre and certainly not a difference maker and Bourne was a bust.

 

The Royals had some success and never signed anyone that could be considered a high-end FA. I They traded for Shields but were better after he left. They got nothing at all out of the first year. Is it possible they could have been even better and extended their window had they traded for Shields as a 2 month rental like they did with Cueto and not given up Myers. What if they had instead traded Myers for a couple good SP prospects? It's speculative but it's hard to argue that could have turned out much better for them.

 

I just gave you two examples of teams with similar revenue that won the world series in the past 5 years without "playing in the high end" of free agency. Can you give me an example in the past 10 or even 15 years of a team similar to the Twins in revenue who won or even made it to the world series where a key player was a "top end" free agent? I am not sure you can because the list above illustrates the top end free agents are signed by teams at the top end of the revenue spectrum. Therefore, you have taken a position in direct opposition to the approach taken by every GM of every team with equal or less revenue as compared to the Twins. With all due respect, I doubt you have figured out something this collective group has failed to understand. I realize that what's sports fans do but that adds no merit to the position.

And KC was done in three years. I said consistently. They also traded, basically, Buxton or Sano as a prospect. Twins never do that either. As for Cleveland, it all came together. But it hasn't for Cincy, the As, Ray's, pirates, etc. Most of the cheap teams go years and years between being good. Most are never elite. If some fans are good with a decade or two between being really good, good for them.

[old nurse]

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196662/revenue-of-the-kansas-city-royals/

I wasn't asking for your source. It really did not take much to know where you got you statistic. Statistica has access to private business records? I do not think so. They  might be using Forbes numbers, which Forbes in fine print has said is a guess on the revenues. Sorry I was asking  people to think why would a number look funny.

[Rosterman]

The thing is, the Twins seem to be waiting for one of the Big Four to sign before making a salary overture. Would they overpay? Are they waiting to see if they should compete in what could be a market of a long contract or high salary? On the flip side, we may say, they could always trade. But so can every other team, especially for those guys that are really good with contract control. Would the Twins be willing to break their prospect bank for a starter via trade?

[jorgenswest]

I am wondering if the big 4 includes Lynn and Cobb who I would think are similar to Nolasco or Santana as they were signed if Nolasco and Santana also had the injury history. They come with a greater risk of injury over 4 years.

 

It seems as if everyone is waiting so I think it is more like the players waiting. Apparently the Cubs offered 42 over 3 to Cobb and he is waiting for better.

 

I would offer either 60 over 4 as long as year 4 has an option that vests at 200 innings pitched in year 3 and a buy out for that 4th year at 5 million. Anything more would be a mistake for a pitcher that projects as a back end postseason starter year 1 and declines from there. Neither will move the needle much for a team making an impact in the postseason.

[curt1965]

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago because I highly doubted the Twins would make any significant free agent signings. I was blasted up and down TD territory for disparaging our beloved team so much you’d think I was Steve Bannon or somebody!

I too love the Minnesota kids, but despite every front office from Howard Fox to the Falvine boys saying they would add significant players, I simply can’t remember the last time this happened, if ever.

I stipulate the current FO must have a plan in mind. However, don’t expect me to jump up and down for someone that has to battle for the last starting job, or an aging bull pen guy that is signed to a minor league contract.

[BrianTrottier]

 

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago because I highly doubted the Twins would make any significant free agent signings. I was blasted up and down TD territory for disparaging our beloved team so much you’d think I was Steve Bannon or somebody!
I too love the Minnesota kids, but despite every front office from Howard Fox to the Falvine boys saying they would add significant players, I simply can’t remember the last time this happened, if ever.
I stipulate the current FO must have a plan in mind. However, don’t expect me to jump up and down for someone that has to battle for the last starting job, or an aging bull pen guy that is signed to a minor league contract.

 

Where is this "jump up and down" talk coming from? Who's jumping for joy about the Rodney and Duke signings? There is a lot of distance between jumping for joy and expressing sheer outrage at the signing of a couple cheap veteran bullpen arms. I think most people here are somewhere between the two.

[amjgt]

Per Ken Rosenthal:

 

The offseason started with 166 free agents. Only 31 of them have signed (18.6%)

[nicksaviking]

 

Per Ken Rosenthal:

 

The offseason started with 166 free agents. Only 31 of them have signed (18.6%)

 

And while a bunch will surely sign in the next two months, I have a feeling there are going to be a ton of vets that no one would have ever envisioned being out of a job three months ago, actually out of a job.

 

Teams do look like they're playing hardball with the free agents, but I think they're playing from solid footing. More so than in a long time, organizations seem very content to give the young, eager, healthy and most importantly cheap young players already in their system priority when it comes to filling out the rosters. 

[amjgt]

The article he wrote on the topic (on The Athletic) was a good one.

[Major League Ready]

 

And KC was done in three years. I said consistently. They also traded, basically, Buxton or Sano as a prospect. Twins never do that either. As for Cleveland, it all came together. But it hasn't for Cincy, the As, Ray's, pirates, etc. Most of the cheap teams go years and years between being good. Most are never elite. If some fans are good with a decade or two between being really good, good for them.

 

The difference between the sophistication of analysis on baseball statics and the crudeness of conclusions when it comes to baseball finance and spending.  There are teams that generate $100M more, even $200M more in revenue than these teams.  Yet, the conclusion as to their reason for not spending like the teams with a great deal more revenue is that they are cheap.

 

Does the person or household with 80K of income have the same spending habits as the man/woman/household with $150K income?  Is the 80K guy cheap because he does not drive as expensive of a car or because he lives in a less expensive home.  Cmon guys, let’s use just a little common sense.

[laloesch]

 

The difference between the sophistication of analysis on baseball statics and the crudeness of conclusions when it comes to baseball finance and spending.  There are teams that generate $100M more, even $200M more in revenue than these teams.  Yet, the conclusion as to their reason for not spending like the teams with a great deal more revenue is that they are cheap.

 

Does the person or household with 80K of income have the same spending habits as the man/woman/household with $150K income?  Is the 80K guy cheap because he does not drive as expensive of a car or because he lives in a less expensive home.  Cmon guys, let’s use just a little common sense.

 

 

Exactly why baseball needs a hard salary cap.  Same as before still hasn't changed.

[Doomtints]

Revenue is not a barrier for the Twins to sign free agents. Not sure why convos always end up going that way. It's not reality.

[Twins33]

Revenue is not a barrier for the Twins to sign free agents. Not sure why convos always end up going that way. It's not reality.

Agreed. Plus a salary cap just puts more dollars in the owners pocket. Why are we rooting for that?

 

Even with a salary cap, the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers would still be more appealing for a player than the Rays, A's or even the Twins. I don't think much would change at all.

[Major League Ready]

 

Exactly why baseball needs a hard salary cap.  Same as before still hasn't changed.

 

Well, I am not exactly sure what they need to do.  You would think the owners/league would pursue and practices and policies that protect and grow the popularity of the game.  Every other sport seems to think some form of control that limits the advantage of higher revenue teams is a good.  The higher revenue teams don't have these long periods of mediocrity or worse.