Twins should be taking advantage of this market

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

This notion that players don't get paid is mind boggling.  They are making a minimum of $500,000 a year to play a sport.  How many people here make that much a year? It would take me 9 plus years to make what league minimum is in the MLB. Not to mention as long as you are on the 40 man roster, you are making the league minimum.  I don't feel bad for players who are making that kind of money to be pouting that they want more.  Follow some league minimum guys on instagram and tell me how bad you feel that they don't get paid "until thirty". Players who make the mlb and are under "serfdom" are doing just fine. I'll trade places with them if they want.

 

I'm a teacher in an urban district making $60,000 a year with two months off during the summer and around six weeks of vacation during the school year. A common complaint among teachers is that we don't get paid to our relative worth to the community, so if complaining about $500,000+ compared to a baseball players relative worth to the community is where we are at, how can you feel bad for the Bryce Harper's of the world?

 

Not to sound too ridiculous here, but the reality is we should all fight for people getting their fair share based upon production. 

 

You work in a public service position, so it's not a surprise that you don't make $500K.  But if you and 24 of your closest buddies were able to generate $300MM revenue per year at a large profit margin for a business owner, I'd happily advocate that you and your friends should get a lot of that money.    

[Rosterman]

The Twins have $40-50 million to spend to upgrade.

 

What should they do?

 

Who on the 40-man roster could easily be replaced by a better player?

 

Who on the 40-man roster will NOT be a Twin in 2020?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Since LaVelle probably saw TR at least once a week, I'm guessing he was in a much better position to know his.duties than practically anyone else. Why don't you contact LaVelle. He always leaves contact information.

 

I'm not the only one who reads the Strib sports page.

I'd guess that it is far more likely that LaVelle was misinterpreted.

 

You're the only person on this forum who has claimed that TR was in charge of IFA for the Twins from 2007-2011. I'd say the onus is on you to provide any evidence for this claim beyond your own memory.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The thing that nobody talks about is how arbitration is pushing up salaries. Cleveland for example, had to rearrange their secondary players because arbitration had pushed up the salaries of most of the core players. Cron and Schoop were largely available to the Twins because their previous teams didn't want to pay their likely arbitration awards.

The main reason the Twins haven't gone after big ticket free agents is because most of what we regard as their current core, will have their salaries pushed up dramatically thru arbitration IF they start performing close to what most us consider to be their ceilings. So, if you want to keep these guys around, and this year will go a long ways to deetermining which guys you want to keep, it becomes increasing difficult to commit long term money to free agents.

The Twins are a long ways from being in Cleveland's position, but many mid market teams are finding themselves there. They are trying to choose between overpaying for free agents, holding onto core pieces as long as they can, and trying to keep some flexibility for dealing with injuries and under performance. It is really only the first 3 years of a career where good to great players are cheap. Teams really don't want to pay replaceable players arbitration rates.

I wouldn't call it a case of either Cron or Schoop's talent pricing them out, in fact I'd say it was the exact opposite. Each became available more so because their former teams felt, as you said, that they could replace the production while spending less. Cleveland is a different story with their own financial issues. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison with other mid market teams, and I'm not even sure they should be considered a mid market sized organization. 

 

You're right, if the Twins see a dramatic uptick in arbitration spending it's because their young players are performing well, but isn't that a scenario to be desired? Those are exactly the guys this team should be trying to extend/hold onto. That's a no-brainer. The organization will still have to supplement via FA or trades; they're not building a team completely from home grown talent. In that case there's no reason not to spend on FAs. If the young players go belly up then they save on the arbitration side and the FAs can be moved. IMO it's about where you're investing your FA $$ and draft capital. This "wait and see," approach does nothing but potentially burn a year of cheap production and lengthen the laundry list of needs entering next season. 

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

This "wait and see," approach does nothing but potentially burn a year of cheap production and lengthen the laundry list of needs entering next season. 

 

 

Preach it, brother Kirby.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Since LaVelle probably saw TR at least once a week, I'm guessing he was in a much better position to know his.duties than practically anyone else. Why don't you contact LaVelle. He always leaves contact information.

 

I'm not the only one who reads the Strib sports page.

I can't believe I am doing this, but here goes:

 

https://twitter.com/LaVelleNeal/status/1095818915563880448?s=20

 

Tweet transcript:

 

Question: "@LaVelleNeal Could you help settle a sports bet? Would you say that Terry Ryan was "in charge" of international free agency for the Twins during the Bill Smith era (2008-2011)?"

 

LaVelle: "No. Sano, Kepler and Polanco were on Smith’s watch"

[Major League Ready]

 

So instead of the large market teams gobbling up the big name free agents like they do now, they'd simply do it more efficiently? I'm still not seeing a difference. Either way, the large market teams still gobble up the big name free agents. How they go about it is largely irrelevant. The result is still the same.

 

Albert Pujlos produced .4WAR over the past 4 years
Price Fielder – Produced .4 WAR over his last 5 seasons
Melivin Upton – Averaged .38 WAR over 5 seasons
Josh Hamilton produced .4 WAR over his last 3 seasons
Jason Heyward, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Chris Davis all would be cut.
Annabal Sanchez produced .73 WAR over the last 3 seasons of his deal.
Cueto and Zimmerman have been under 1 WAR per season the last couple years. 
CJ Wilson produced 2.2 WAR over his last 3 seasons.

 

There are also several high-end RPs that produced less than 1 WAR in the last year of their deals and other players who produced adequately enough to make it debatable if they were detrimental.  Had these players been on shorter deals, those teams would have had even more money to absorb an even greater portion of the FA market.  Perhaps more importantly, they could have improved their teams if not saddled with these bad contracts.  Therefore, I don’t agree the result would have been the same.  Those teams would have had even greater dominance over the FA market and in all likelihood would have have improved their teams if those players were not under contract.

[old nurse]

 

So what's your point? Don't sign free agents because they might get hurt, or not be good? I'm but sure where this is going.

In your line of thinking I read it as sign Machado  or Harper  solves everything. All will be duckies and bunnies if only the Twins sign every last player they can. Now the first thing you would type  would likely be "I didn't say that" so why put up words I did not say and then challenge me to defend them?  My point was pretty simple in print. Not many times do long term free agents work out.  If that they are 26 means they will work out for the length of the contract, 28 and 29 year olds should work out great on 5 year contracts,  30-31 year olds on 3 year contracts. This is simply not the case

[old nurse]

 

Scherzer is only in the middle of his deal, but we can safely conclude that it has worked out -- you can remove the "so far" qualifier. He's already at 29 bWAR, which is a fine return on his $210 mil deal (actually only $191 mil in "present day value" considering deferred money). From the Mariners perspective, Cano's deal has pretty much worked too -- 24 bWAR for $140-176 mil (depending on how you value the other pieces of that trade).

 

There are certainly long term deals that have gone bust, but it's not as if average or good ones are rare. From the same offseason as Scherzer, Lester was the only other $100+ mil FA deal and it has gone well. The Cano offseason also featured Tanaka (gone well) as well as the less impressive Ellsbury and Choo deals (although Ellsbury did manage 10 WAR in his first 4 seasons). The 2012-2013 offseason saw Greinke (good) and Josh Hamilton (bad).

 

Clubs like the Twins can't rely on these kind of FA too much, of course, but they also shouldn't close the door on the possibility too much either.

Lester's fwar would say he declining, bwar is all over the place. k% is going down, bb% is going up, velo is going down. 4 out of 6 years is good.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

In your line of thinking I read it as sign Machado  or Harper  solves everything. All will be duckies and bunnies if only the Twins sign every last player they can. Now the first thing you would type  would likely be "I didn't say that" so why put up words I did not say and then challenge me to defend them?  My point was pretty simple in print. Not many times do long term free agents work out.  If that they are 26 means they will work out for the length of the contract, 28 and 29 year olds should work out great on 5 year contracts,  30-31 year olds on 3 year contracts. This is simply not the case

I would ask however what you mean by "work out"? Lets take some recent Twins deals as examples. Ervin Santana, because he had a bad last season of his deal did it not work out? How about Phil Hughes? On his original deal it worked out great and would have continued well imo. The problem was when the GM jumped the gun and extended him. How about the biggest deal of all, Joe Mauer? Did Joe's deal not work out for the team? With all of the #7 jerseys that were made and sold I bet that pohlad isn't owed anything from that deal either. 

 

Ricky Nolasco was a bad deal. But many knew it would be the day TR handed it out.

 

Also, what do you have to back up "Not many times do long term free agents work out"? What is the % of deals that go bad?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Lester's fwar would say he declining, bwar is all over the place. k% is going down, bb% is going up, velo is going down. 4 out of 6 years is good.

Sure, he's declining (aren't we all?). But Lester has already given the Cubs 13.7 fWAR, 12.4 bWAR, and 70 IP of 2.44 ERA in the postseason. I'd say Lester has pretty much earned his full contract already too ($155 mil) with 2 years to go, even if not to the degree the Scherzer has.

[Mike Sixel]

In your line of thinking I read it as sign Machado or Harper solves everything. All will be duckies and bunnies if only the Twins sign every last player they can. Now the first thing you would type would likely be "I didn't say that" so why put up words I did not say and then challenge me to defend them? My point was pretty simple in print. Not many times do long term free agents work out. If that they are 26 means they will work out for the length of the contract, 28 and 29 year olds should work out great on 5 year contracts, 30-31 year olds on 3 year contracts. This is simply not the case

I'm not sure why this seems adversarial.

 

should they avoid free agents because sometimes they get hurt? Because that's how I read your post. It is possible I read it wrong, which is why I'm asking.

[old nurse]

 

I would ask however what you mean by "work out"? Lets take some recent Twins deals as examples. Ervin Santana, because he had a bad last season of his deal did it not work out? How about Phil Hughes? On his original deal it worked out great and would have continued well imo. The problem was when the GM jumped the gun and extended him. How about the biggest deal of all, Joe Mauer? Did Joe's deal not work out for the team? With all of the #7 jerseys that were made and sold I bet that pohlad isn't owed anything from that deal either. 

 

Ricky Nolasco was a bad deal. But many knew it would be the day TR handed it out.

 

Also, what do you have to back up "Not many times do long term free agents work out"? What is the % of deals that go bad?

People want these players. What is their proof that long term deals are good?

[Jim Hahn]

I wouldn't call it a case of either Cron or Schoop's talent pricing them out, in fact I'd say it was the exact opposite. Each became available more so because their former teams felt, as you said, that they could replace the production while spending less. Cleveland is a different story with their own financial issues. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison with other mid market teams, and I'm not even sure they should be considered a mid market sized organization. 

 

You're right, if the Twins see a dramatic uptick in arbitration spending it's because their young players are performing well, but isn't that a scenario to be desired? Those are exactly the guys this team should be trying to extend/hold onto. That's a no-brainer. The organization will still have to supplement via FA or trades; they're not building a team completely from home grown talent. In that case there's no reason not to spend on FAs. If the young players go belly up then they save on the arbitration side and the FAs can be moved. IMO it's about where you're investing your FA $$ and draft capital. This "wait and see," approach does nothing but potentially burn a year of cheap production and lengthen the laundry list of needs entering next season.

 

I think both Cron and Schoop would have received more through the arbitration process than they did from the Twins. The reason they were dfa'd was not that they aren't good or at least pretty good players, it was the arbitration process was making them relatively expensive in relation to their production. A team with greater resources might have kept those players, because either or both has a good chance to outproduce whoever replaces them. However, there is a pretty large pool of similar players available, maybe even from your minor league system, so a team can gamble on adequate production, and use the money saved elsewhere.

 

In the case of Cleveland, their great players are getting enough thru the arbitration, that Cleveland had little choice(apparently) but to spend less on their secondary players.

 

Now again, the Twins are nowhere near that situation. But while the Twins probably could spend $40 million more this year, and probably next year as well, they are seemingly avoiding committing to that kind of money long term. At least right now. That makes sense to me. Signing Harper or Machado would clearly make the Twins better now, and perhaps the next year too, but at some point players in their prime will have to be moved in order to keep either one. It may even happen that at some point that either Harper or Machado will not be any better than than an in house replacement but will be virtually impossible to trade.

 

Now I would like to see the Twins try to sign Keuchel. But you cannot get him for less than 4 years, probably. Whether he can stay healthy and effective for 4 years is one question. What you have to give up to keep him that long would be the other.

[Mike Sixel]

People want these players. What is their proof that long term deals are good?

I guess I'd ask what the alternative is. For example, take out santana, and replace him with the next guy in the minors. Or take out a RP and give those innings to the guys that produced negative value.

 

People always point out the end of contracts being bad, ignoring the beginning being good. People point out that players get hurt. But they rarely point out what happens if the team had to use the next minor league player they are willing to use.

 

So, what's your proof that signing one great free agent is bad? Not every. Not a lot. One.

 

Because if they don't add good players, they have to play not good players instead.

[old nurse]

 

I'm not sure why this seems adversarial.

should they avoid free agents because sometimes they get hurt? Because that's how I read your post. It is possible I read it wrong, which is why I'm asking.

I have not mentioned do not sign players because they get hurt. Are you are reading what you want into the post? My point was simply that very few longer term free agent signings have worked out.

[Supfin99]

I'd drop Reed and Hildenberger for two of Tyler Clippard, Bud Norris, Ryan Madson and Nick Vincent right now. All of whom will likely get a one year deal if not even a minor league deal.

 

I might drop them anyway, actually.

Hildenberger was great for his 1st 90 innings of his career and then really bad for his last 30 innings last year. As late as July 15h his ERA was 2.88. Bud Norris career era 4.45 and last year was 1st year below 4 ERA in 7 years. Tyler Clippard managed more than 14 innings last year for 1st time in 3 years. Madson’s ERA was 5.47 last year. What’s more likely to happen, a mid 30’s reliever with history of massive volatility has a great year or a 28 year old with bad 2 months regains his form? Also quick note Hildenberger, he gave up 20 of his season total of 44 earned runs in just 7 outings covering just 4 and a third innings. Nearly half the runs he allowed for the season. In the other 67 appearances covering 68 and 2/3 innings he gave up 56 hits, 22 walks and struck out 63 for an ERA of 3.14. I know stats can be cherry picked but this is a guy that even last year in a 2nd half struggle was a very good pitcher 90% of the time. He is team controlled for 4 more years, makes 500K and has been a Twin for his entire professional career. Maybe let’s give him just a little more rope before writing him off.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think both Cron and Schoop would have received more through the arbitration process than they did from the Twins. The reason they were dfa'd was not that they aren't good or at least pretty good players, it was the arbitration process was making them relatively expensive in relation to their production. A team with greater resources might have kept those players, because either or both has a good chance to outproduce whoever replaces them. However, there is a pretty large pool of similar players available, maybe even from your minor league system, so a team can gamble on adequate production, and use the money saved elsewhere.

In the case of Cleveland, their great players are getting enough thru the arbitration, that Cleveland had little choice(apparently) but to spend less on their secondary players.

Now again, the Twins are nowhere near that situation. But while the Twins probably could spend $40 million more this year, and probably next year as well, they are seemingly avoiding committing to that kind of money long term. At least right now. That makes sense to me. Signing Harper or Machado would clearly make the Twins better now, and perhaps the next year too, but at some point players in their prime will have to be moved in order to keep either one. It may even happen that at some point that either Harper or Machado will not be any better than than an in house replacement but will be virtually impossible to trade.

Now I would like to see the Twins try to sign Keuchel. But you cannot get him for less than 4 years, probably. Whether he can stay healthy and effective for 4 years is one question. What you have to give up to keep him that long would be the other.

Exactly, but it's different to say that teams choose to replace players rather than they're forced to let them go. Personally I don't think it's any more of a gamble to replace a Cron or Schoop than it is to sign one of them and expect production closer to career peaks rather than valleys. 

 

Signing a Harper or Machado doesn't preclude the Twins from holding onto their younger players, unless you think they'll be unwilling to spend above league average, which itself is a greater issue. 

[wsnydes]

 

Albert Pujlos produced .4WAR over the past 4 years
Price Fielder – Produced .4 WAR over his last 5 seasons
Melivin Upton – Averaged .38 WAR over 5 seasons
Josh Hamilton produced .4 WAR over his last 3 seasons
Jason Heyward, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Chris Davis all would be cut.
Annabal Sanchez produced .73 WAR over the last 3 seasons of his deal.
Cueto and Zimmerman have been under 1 WAR per season the last couple years. 
CJ Wilson produced 2.2 WAR over his last 3 seasons.

 

There are also several high-end RPs that produced less than 1 WAR in the last year of their deals and other players who produced adequately enough to make it debatable if they were detrimental.  Had these players been on shorter deals, those teams would have had even more money to absorb an even greater portion of the FA market.  Perhaps more importantly, they could have improved their teams if not saddled with these bad contracts.  Therefore, I don’t agree the result would have been the same.  Those teams would have had even greater dominance over the FA market and in all likelihood would have have improved their teams if those players were not under contract.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not debating that they'd dominate the market. My point is that they're doing it now. Despite the payrolls of the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees, they're still at the very least reportedly looking in to Machado and Harper. Their payroll or even roster composition doesn't seem to deter them at all. Also, despite having the third highest payroll in MLB, the Red Sox still went out and got JD Martinez last offseason. This coming after an offseason in which they brought in David Price and traded for Chris Sale (with Ortiz coming off the books). You don't see the Rays or Milwaukee or KC linked to these guys, it's still the big market teams. Obviously we don't know where those two are going to land, but it's not going to be in TB. In my view, your scenario just drives the price up for the player and they still just go to a big market - which is what is happening now. There's no difference between the two scenarios in my view. Either way, the best players will still go to the big markets.

 

 

[Jim Hahn]

Exactly, but it's different to say that teams choose to replace players rather than they're forced to let them go. Personally I don't think it's any more of a gamble to replace a Cron or Schoop than it is to sign one of them and expect production closer to career peaks rather than valleys. 

 

Signing a Harper or Machado doesn't preclude the Twins from holding onto their younger players, unless you think they'll be unwilling to spend above league average, which itself is a greater issue.

 

I suspect we are closer to thinking similarly on these ideas, I am probably not expressing myself that well.

 

To your second point, I doubt if the Twins win spend to league average. Even if they did, it could be very difficult to keep all of the young core guys with a Harper or Machado on the roster. If you did you could end up with a stars and scrubs situation, which can leave you entirely dependent on the health and productivity of your stars.

 

To your first point. We all hope it becomes a choice. Assuming the current core gets close to their perceived ceilings, it would be very fine if our highly rated farm system allows the front office to make those choices. If those type of players are good enough, you can choose to trade or even dfa players who get expensive and replace them with players who have a good chance of being as good or possibly better. This would allow you the choice you are talking about. There are fewer good gambles to replace players as they get expensive, if your farm system can't produce those players.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I suspect we are closer to thinking similarly on these ideas, I am probably not expressing myself that well.

To your second point, I doubt if the Twins win spend to league average. Even if they did, it could be very difficult to keep all of the young core guys with a Harper or Machado on the roster. If you did you could end up with a stars and scrubs situation, which can leave you entirely dependent on the health and productivity of your stars.

To your first point. We all hope it becomes a choice. Assuming the current core gets close to their perceived ceilings, it would be very fine if our highly rated farm system allows the front office to make those choices. If those type of players are good enough, you can choose to trade or even dfa players who get expensive and replace them with players who have a good chance of being as good or possibly better. This would allow you the choice you are talking about. There are fewer good gambles to replace players as they get expensive, if your farm system can't produce those players.

I could certainly be guilty of misreading it as well. 

 

They'd have to exceed league average to absorb a large signing and hold onto core young players. What little optimism I have regarding this organization's willingness to commit to winning remembers their 10' and 11' payrolls and thinks it might happen. 

 

Maybe this is where I misunderstood, but I took your OP to mean that teams weren't able to hold onto guys like Schoop and Cron because they couldn't afford to. IMO those players become fringe roster types due to the ease with which they can be replaced, rather than teams letting them go against their own desires. Whether it's an internal option, or a FA, there's a large enough pool for teams to choose their "gambles." 

[Major League Ready]

 

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not debating that they'd dominate the market. My point is that they're doing it now. Despite the payrolls of the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees, they're still at the very least reportedly looking in to Machado and Harper. Their payroll or even roster composition doesn't seem to deter them at all. Also, despite having the third highest payroll in MLB, the Red Sox still went out and got JD Martinez last offseason. This coming after an offseason in which they brought in David Price and traded for Chris Sale (with Ortiz coming off the books). You don't see the Rays or Milwaukee or KC linked to these guys, it's still the big market teams. Obviously we don't know where those two are going to land, but it's not going to be in TB. In my view, your scenario just drives the price up for the player and they still just go to a big market - which is what is happening now. There's no difference between the two scenarios in my view. Either way, the best players will still go to the big markets.

 

I understand where you are coming from I just don’t agree it’s all the same. If the contracts mentioned were shorter, those teams would have had hundreds of millions of incremental dollars to spend while losing very little production. If those teams maintain the same level of spending, that will absorb even more of the available talent. This is not a theory, it is a certainty if we accept the premise they would continue to spend at the same rate.

 

The other probable difference is that those teams become even better because of the propensity for poor performance in the latter years of these contracts. In other words, those exceptionally poor producing players will be replaced by players that likely perform better. Therefore, the big market teams absorbing this talent will be better which is a tangible difference between the two scenarios.

[wsnydes]

 

I understand where you are coming from I just don’t agree it’s all the same. If the contracts mentioned were shorter, those teams would have had hundreds of millions of incremental dollars to spend while losing very little production. If those teams maintain the same level of spending, that will absorb even more of the available talent. This is not a theory, it is a certainty if we accept the premise they would continue to spend at the same rate.

 

The other probable difference is that those teams become even better because of the propensity for poor performance in the latter years of these contracts. In other words, those exceptionally poor producing players will be replaced by players that likely perform better. Therefore, the big market teams absorbing this talent will be better which is a tangible difference between the two scenarios.

I think where our primary differences lie is in the next tier of FA players. In my view, currently the big market teams identify an area where they can improve and go and improve it. That includes the big names, it includes the next tier, it includes all levels of FA. It includes trading for players (i.e. Chris Sale). There are still roster limits and assuming the luxury tax still exists (or something similar to it), it won't be a completely free market for lower tier FA's. Of course, revenue streams will always be a consideration. 

 

Part of how the big market teams remain competitive year in and year out is by drafting and developing well and then trading those pieces for areas of need. 

 

There's also the flip side of this. The long term risk exposure gets reduced so perhaps the smaller market teams start jumping into the mix on the 2nd tier FAs. I imagine that the big names will still go to the large markets though. In my view, typically what scares smaller market teams away from a FA is the term, not necessarily the dollar though obviously there are instances where both are prohibitive. Obviously the large market teams are better able to absorb the risk involved with 10 year type deals.

 

We can agree to disagree, I'm perfectly fine with that. I've enjoyed the debate!

[less cowbell more neau]

 

 

They also should have signed players that could easily be flipped for prospects at the trade deadline. 

 

I thought that was their strategy.