Spend money just to spend money?

[Nick Nelson]

I have no notion that saving money today will result in money to spend tomorrow, but I also think its reckless to recommend spending money that doesn't result in tangible competitiveness either now or in the future.

Who's to say it doesn't? Are you so firmly convinced that with a quality arm added to the top of the rotation, this team would stand absolutely no chance of competing and at least keeping things interesting into September? I'm not. In fact, I'm not totally convinced the current roster can't keep things interesting, but I'm quite confident that if they do they'll be wishing they'd added more of a legitimate asset to the rotation during the offseason. I don't see what purpose is served by opting for table scraps and giving your starting corps none of the immediate help it so desperately needed (save Worley) despite ample funds.

 

With the pieces they have on offense and in the bullpen, the Twins have too much talent on their roster to just wave the white flag before the season starts, in my opinion. Maybe that's where I differ from a lot of you.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'm still waiting for someone to offer a good reason why it's necessarily bad to "spend money just to spend money."

 

What, exactly, does it hurt, other than someone's sense of fiscal responsibility?

 

How does it hurt this year's team? Next year's team? 2015's team?

 

As far as I can tell, the only thing it hurts is the Pohlad brothers' pocketbooks. And quite frankly, I don't think it'd hurt all that much, nor do I care if it does.

[edavis0308]

We all understand that it's a business. I personally think it's bad business to blatantly lie to your customers and to refuse to invest in giving them a better product. Do you really believe they'll be operating in the red if they spend over $80M? I didn't realize Target Field had dropped back down to Metrodome revenues after three years. The notion is especially ridiculous when you consider the TV money that's about to be dropping on them.

 

Remember that one time that Target Field was built with only private funds and no money from the public?

[twinsnorth49]

And since 1998, the Twins have had a higher payroll than Detroit only 4 times. That speaks more about Detroit's past incompetence at putting together a winning team than it does the team's willingness to spend money to improve the product.

 

Or that spending money doesn't necessarily guarantee improving the product.

[kab21]

I agree that spending money just to spend money is wrong. Some just like to rant about payroll being lower w/o looking at how the Twins could have actually have spent that money.

 

Where the Twins FO have failed so far this offseason is adding a couple of players on shortish contracts where they wouldn't be blocking a young player. Other than a few exceptions (like the cubans) teams can't divert unspent MLB budgets to int'l FA's or draft picks. Bringing in an average RP'er (like Frasor or several others) adds an asset that can be traded or make it possible to trade Burton and/or Perkins. The Twins weren't even linked to a MI this offseason.

 

I wanted them to get the best pitcher that 3/35 could have bought because the fact is that it's highly unlikely that the Twins even come close to a 100M payroll in the next couple of years. If the pitcher busts then at least the contract is off the books in a couple of years and didn't prevent the Twins from signing anyone. It's also possible that the Twins can trade that pitcher near the end and pick up a prospect. Instead they got Correia and Pelfrey.

[The Wise One]

I'm still waiting for someone to offer a good reason why it's necessarily bad to "spend money just to spend money."

 

What, exactly, does it hurt, other than someone's sense of fiscal responsibility?

 

How does it hurt this year's team? Next year's team? 2015's team?

 

As far as I can tell, the only thing it hurts is the Pohlad brothers' pocketbooks. And quite frankly, I don't think it'd hurt all that much, nor do I care if it does.

 

If it good to spend money to spend money then there should be no complaints in the signing of Kevin Correia. They spent money to spend money. They should spend more BTW. The available talent pool is getting small.

[johnnydakota]

First, Detroit isn't making a profit. According to Forbes their operating revenue has been in the red the last few years.

 

Second, Carl Pohlad has already won 2 WS titles so he wasn't as desperate as Ilitch. Hopefully at some point Jim wants to create his own legacy and not just bask in Carl's.

 

That being said of course I would like the Twins' to open the purse strings and spend some more money on quality players. I would like the payroll to be around $100M.

 

At 140 million the twins would still make a profit....

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Teams can run deficits because their franchise equity is appreciating at an insane rate right now. Even the Twins have gained value at over 40% annually since 2002.

 

• MLB Minnesota Twins franchise value 2002-2012 | Statistic

 

Assuming the intention is to sell in the near future...

[The Wise One]

Who's to say it doesn't? Are you so firmly convinced that with a quality arm added to the top of the rotation, this team would stand absolutely no chance of competing and at least keeping things interesting into September? I'm not. In fact, I'm not totally convinced the current roster can't keep things interesting, but I'm quite confident that if they do they'll be wishing they'd added more of a legitimate asset to the rotation during the offseason. I don't see what purpose is served by opting for table scraps and giving your starting corps none of the immediate help it so desperately needed (save Worley) despite ample funds.

 

With the pieces they have on offense and in the bullpen, the Twins have too much talent on their roster to just wave the white flag before the season starts, in my opinion. Maybe that's where I differ from a lot of you.

 

Adding a quality arm would result in tangible competitivess. The debate may be what is the lowest threshold for a quality arm. Marcum, yes. Lohse, not for a draft pick. Blanton? Jurrgens? Slowey? At this point the options get thin.

[kab21]

In the spanish alphabet there are extra letters, extra accsents (punctuations), when i use this symbol ( i am pressing the number nine.

not shifting up , but simply the number nine.once again let me say i apoligise....we are all twins fans

hope we get a good season soon , have a nice day ...

 

Your problem is not Spanish punctuation but rather awful punctuation. Everybody makes mistakes typing. I frequently forget words because my typing is slower than my thinking and I'm not a bad typer. Your problem is long, run on sentences separated by 10 commas. If you do use periods then you don't use spaces and capital letters. This is basically the equivalent of my elementary age English students in Taiwan. Or it's like a string of text messages connected by commas. Your spelling is not very good either.

[TheLeviathan]

Adding a quality arm would result in tangible competitivess. The debate may be what is the lowest threshold for a quality arm. Marcum, yes. Lohse, not for a draft pick. Blanton? Jurrgens? Slowey? At this point the options get thin.

 

No one here is suggesting they get Correia II just so payroll's bottom line looks better. The fact is there are several players enormously better than guys currently on the roster that are available. The best part is they won't be blocking anyone either.

 

Adding assets to a team may have a "diminishing return" but there are truly assets available and any team should pursue those if they can. Especially when they are reaching a point of desperation at those positions. (MI and SP)

 

I can tell you as a season ticket holder that couldn't use his seats the last two months of the season that apathy is a very real threat for this team. Another season of losing and the diminishing return the Twins should be worried about will have a much different connotation.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

We all understand that it's a business. I personally think it's bad business to blatantly lie to your customers and to refuse to invest in giving them a better product. Do you really believe they'll be operating in the red if they spend over $80M? I didn't realize Target Field had dropped back down to Metrodome revenues after three years. The notion is especially ridiculous when you consider the TV money that's about to be dropping on them.

 

And here is where the circular argument comes in to play. What if the GM truly believes that the pitchers available are not worth the money? What if he truly feels that there are no logical trades for the team? No ill intent, just not what he considers to be prudent moves. Would you still look at it as lying to the public? What if the intention was to truly keep the payroll at X dollars, but their better business sense wouldn't allow it? Would you feel better if the payroll was higher, but the team was not any better?

 

Let's say the payroll does come in at $75 million. How do you if/how that money may be reallocated? It's easy to say the Pohlads are pocketing it (and they may be), but it could be redistributed to other areas with the intention of improving the team: scouting, sabermetrics, capital improvements that are not generally public, the list goes on.

 

It is awfully hard to say the Twins are actively deceiving the general public when we are not even to spring training yet, and we do not know what the actual revenue numbers are, or the reasoning behind the decisions.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

At 140 million the twins would still make a profit....

 

What inside information do you have to prove this?

[TheLeviathan]

Let's say the payroll does come in at $75 million. How do you if/how that money may be reallocated? It's easy to say the Pohlads are pocketing it (and they may be), but it could be redistributed to other areas with the intention of improving the team: scouting, sabermetrics, capital improvements that are not generally public, the list goes on.

 

The way the Twins budget this is really stretching for a defense. By all means, see if you can get an explanation, but there is nothing circular to the argument. The promises were not about what payroll would be, but what would be added to the roster. Those promises flopped and payroll was not the issue.

 

For what you claim to be true, Ryan had to be so naive about the price of starting pitching that he was ignorant of how off-base his bravado would look later when the true price came out. I have a hard time believing, as smart as I think Terry Ryan is, that he was that naive about free agency. And if he was, that isn't all that reassuring either.

[drjim]

Is there much more to this thread than a call for the Twins to have signed someone better than Correia and (to a lesser extent) Pelfrey?

 

As of right now the starting rotation has Diamond, Worley and Correia as locks. Pelfrey will also be there if he can answer the bell at the start of the season. It is laughable when people suggest the Twins should sign another starter and push one of these four out of the rotation - it isn't happening. Now, it has been suggested the Twins sign someone like Marcum for the last spot. I could get behind this, but that would pretty much guarantee that Gibson and Hendriks start in the minors. Is this a desirable outcome for a team in the Twins position of rebuilding? Would the Twins be better off filling the spot with someone like Marcum instead of seeing what GIbson or Hendriks have? I'm not sure I agree with that. There is also the slight possibility that Harden and Blackburn make a triumphant returns. There is still depth with the jokers from last year - only they are now the 7-9 starters instead of 2-4 starters.

 

For relievers, it would be silly to sign a guy for more than one year. I still wouldn't be surprised if they add one more arm but they do have a workable back of the bullpen and enough arms to sort through in between that this doesn't strike me as a huge need at the moment.

 

For everyday players the main holes for opening day are middle infield and potentially center field. With the current prospects there is no way the Twins should sign a CF for multiple years. They might sign a one year stopgap or a 4th OF type but that won't be very much money. For middle infielders there just aren't many guys left that would be much an upgrade over the slop the Twins have to offer. I have heard Kelly Johnson, but there are three issues - 1) he's just not that good, 2) it is debatable if he is much of a defensive 2B, and 3) that is where the Twins are planning on starting Dozier. At this point would it make sense to sign Johnson to block Dozier?

 

So by all means spend more money, but there should be a logical plan of who it is spent on and where they fit on the roster both this year and in the future. I don't really see moves that make a ton of sense for the Twins to do. When a team is rebuilding they will fill their roster with younger players that make the minimum and which ultimately lead to a smaller payroll overall.

 

I don't want the Twins to do anything that blocks Hendriks, Dozier, Parmelee, and Plouffe initially, and Hicks, Arcia and Gibson by mid-season. I'm not saying they are the answer, but I would suggest this is the season to find out.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't want the Twins to do anything that blocks Hendriks, Dozier, Parmelee, and Plouffe initially, and Hicks, Arcia and Gibson by mid-season. I'm not saying they are the answer, but I would suggest this is the season to find out.

 

So, then, by that logic the Twins were lying to say they wanted to upgrade the roster. No matter how you shift the focus, the FO has a ton of accountability.

 

Personally, I'm not seeing anyone that Johnson would be "blocking" other than the typical MI garbage. Let them fight over frustrating SS starts. As for Marcum - you don't worry about who he replaces. He's better than anyone currently in the rotation. The guy that loses his spot isn't Hendricks or Gibson - it's Pelfrey.

[Ultima Ratio]

drjim - I will buy you a bottle of scotch, JW Red, if Hendriks and Gibson both don't find themselves in the rotation this year. I think it was Nick who wrote a nice piece about how all our SPs have either serious health issues or will probably regress. I agree. The door will be open from AAA to the MLB club all year. In fact, it will be wide open most of the year I'd guess.

[edavis0308]

Not to beat a dead horse (im sorry) but just because Correia is a lock for the rotation at the beginning of the year doesnt mean he won't be bumped for better options. He probably won't because of his contract but you never know.

[The Wise One]

No one here is suggesting they get Correia II just so payroll's bottom line looks better. The fact is there are several players enormously better than guys currently on the roster that are available. The best part is they won't be blocking anyone either.

 

Adding assets to a team may have a "diminishing return" but there are truly assets available and any team should pursue those if they can. Especially when they are reaching a point of desperation at those positions. (MI and SP)

 

I can tell you as a season ticket holder that couldn't use his seats the last two months of the season that apathy is a very real threat for this team. Another season of losing and the diminishing return the Twins should be worried about will have a much different connotation.

 

I did not even mention a second Correia. Rather, the question asked of Nick is what quality of pitcher would be considered a tangible asset? Psuedobar talked of diminishing return for adding assets. I recall the Twin Cities to be a front running, bandwagon kind of place. Not you when it comes to the Twins, but by attendance figures there are others. Psuedo may unfortunately be right. Without a front running team, there may not be the interest to draw the revenue from the stadium.

[johnnydakota]

And here is where the circular argument comes in to play. What if the GM truly believes that the pitchers available are not worth the money? What if he truly feels that there are no logical trades for the team? No ill intent, just not what he considers to be prudent moves. Would you still look at it as lying to the public? What if the intention was to truly keep the payroll at X dollars, but their better business sense wouldn't allow it? Would you feel better if the payroll was higher, but the team was not any better?

 

Let's say the payroll does come in at $75 million. How do you if/how that money may be reallocated? It's easy to say the Pohlads are pocketing it (and they may be), but it could be redistributed to other areas with the intention of improving the team: scouting, sabermetrics, capital improvements that are not generally public, the list goes on.

 

It is awfully hard to say the Twins are actively deceiving the general public when we are not even to spring training yet, and we do not know what the actual revenue numbers are, or the reasoning behind the decisions.

 

Step away from the kool-aid

[johnnydakota]

What inside information do you have to prove this?

 

2011 payroll? and a claimed profit of 26.6 million dollars?

[TheLeviathan]

I did not even mention a second Correia. Rather, the question asked of Nick is what quality of pitcher would be considered a tangible asset? Psuedobar talked of diminishing return for adding assets. I recall the Twin Cities to be a front running, bandwagon kind of place. Not you when it comes to the Twins, but by attendance figures there are others. Psuedo may unfortunately be right. Without a front running team, there may not be the interest to draw the revenue from the stadium.

 

First, most conversation here is about Marcum. Or of previously available, more talented options than the ones signed. Secondly, you are misunderstanding Psuedo's point. The diminishing returns is in reference to the fact that at some point more money into players yields a diminishing return on the team's win improvement. The diminishing returns you are speaking of are precisely why this team cutting payroll and fielding an inferior team to the one they could potentially field is a serious threat not just to 2013, but beyond.

 

It's much easier to tell a fan base that your third bad season in a row was tough to swallow after you made an honest, concerted effort to improve in the offseason. At least you tried to reverse the direction it was heading. Highlighting an offseason with Correia? That sales pitch is a helluva lot harder.

[johnnydakota]

Is there much more to this thread than a call for the Twins to have signed someone better than Correia and (to a lesser extent) Pelfrey?

 

As of right now the starting rotation has Diamond, Worley and Correia as locks. Pelfrey will also be there if he can answer the bell at the start of the season. It is laughable when people suggest the Twins should sign another starter and push one of these four out of the rotation - it isn't happening. Now, it has been suggested the Twins sign someone like Marcum for the last spot. I could get behind this, but that would pretty much guarantee that Gibson and Hendriks start in the minors. Is this a desirable outcome for a team in the Twins position of rebuilding? Would the Twins be better off filling the spot with someone like Marcum instead of seeing what GIbson or Hendriks have? I'm not sure I agree with that. There is also the slight possibility that Harden and Blackburn make a triumphant returns. There is still depth with the jokers from last year - only they are now the 7-9 starters instead of 2-4 starters.

 

For relievers, it would be silly to sign a guy for more than one year. I still wouldn't be surprised if they add one more arm but they do have a workable back of the bullpen and enough arms to sort through in between that this doesn't strike me as a huge need at the moment.

 

For everyday players the main holes for opening day are middle infield and potentially center field. With the current prospects there is no way the Twins should sign a CF for multiple years. They might sign a one year stopgap or a 4th OF type but that won't be very much money. For middle infielders there just aren't many guys left that would be much an upgrade over the slop the Twins have to offer. I have heard Kelly Johnson, but there are three issues - 1) he's just not that good, 2) it is debatable if he is much of a defensive 2B, and 3) that is where the Twins are planning on starting Dozier. At this point would it make sense to sign Johnson to block Dozier?

 

So by all means spend more money, but there should be a logical plan of who it is spent on and where they fit on the roster both this year and in the future. I don't really see moves that make a ton of sense for the Twins to do. When a team is rebuilding they will fill their roster with younger players that make the minimum and which ultimately lead to a smaller payroll overall.

 

I don't want the Twins to do anything that blocks Hendriks, Dozier, Parmelee, and Plouffe initially, and Hicks, Arcia and Gibson by mid-season. I'm not saying they are the answer, but I would suggest this is the season to find out.

 

At this point in the off season, when players that would of helped the Twins and could of been used as trade chips are off the market, i agree.

If at the start of the off season if we had signed Marcier Izturis, he would have been the bar with which the kids needed to jump over or been plan B in case they (the kids Florimon and Dozier) struggled.As for pitching Dempster, Sanchez and Jackson would have been nice to have to mentor the younger pitcher ,and would have brought a nice package come july....Or next winter

[Nick Nelson]

drjim - I will buy you a bottle of scotch, JW Red, if Hendriks and Gibson both don't find themselves in the rotation this year. I think it was Nick who wrote a nice piece about how all our SPs have either serious health issues or will probably regress. I agree. The door will be open from AAA to the MLB club all year. In fact, it will be wide open most of the year I'd guess.

 

Well said. Among the players the Twins are counting on to fill spots in their rotation, there are two guys coming off elbow scopes, one guy 9 months removed from TJ and one who got booted from an NL rotation on merit last year. Having Gibson and Hendriks prove they belong in Triple-A would be a good problem to have. Because if they're in the majors and show they don't belong, there ain't much to fall back on.

 

I've heard a lot of "Outside of Correia they've had a fine offseason" sentiment. That may be true. But the Correia signing is the crux of this whole thing. That was their marquee multi-year signing (no pun intended) and they went with one of the worst available guys on the market, a pitcher who is not noticeably better than much of what they already had.

[PseudoSABR]

How ****ing hard is it to spell Pseudo?

[snepp]

Psuedo-hard?

[Shane Wahl]

Who's to say it doesn't? Are you so firmly convinced that with a quality arm added to the top of the rotation, this team would stand absolutely no chance of competing and at least keeping things interesting into September? I'm not. In fact, I'm not totally convinced the current roster can't keep things interesting, but I'm quite confident that if they do they'll be wishing they'd added more of a legitimate asset to the rotation during the offseason. I don't see what purpose is served by opting for table scraps and giving your starting corps none of the immediate help it so desperately needed (save Worley) despite ample funds.

 

With the pieces they have on offense and in the bullpen, the Twins have too much talent on their roster to just wave the white flag before the season starts, in my opinion. Maybe that's where I differ from a lot of you.

 

Yeah this is pretty true. A Diamond-Marcum-Worley top three is actually bordering on legitimate as a top three. This is not true when 5th-6th starter Correia has to enter that picture. Also, keep in mind that Chicago is going nowhere, KC and Cleveland are up in the air with no true clear way to 85 wins, and the Tigers are a key injury away from being a problem.

 

And IN ANY EVENT. Signing someone legitimate even if the team ends up not being good could mean to a TRADE to a contender at the deadline and the Twins might get something of value for the future. It's an investment and the Twins are willing to do it, apparently.

[Shane Wahl]

This thread is making me go crazy. Good god. Even if the Twins are bad again in 2013, signing someone who will be a potential trade asset at the deadline would be a smart move. And I am not convinced that the Twins are going to be very bad. A full year of a healthy Plouffe and a healthy Morneau, coupled with the potential rise of Hicks and Arcia? This doesn't sound so bad offensively as an improvement (and the offense was NOT the problem last year). What the Twins have done so far was add one legitimate pitcher (though as Nick as made clear to me, Worley is not innings-tested at all) and a replacement level pitcher when the Twins already have a half dozen of them in the system. They added correctly for 2015 and that is fine, but they cannot just bank on the future--they must at least try in the present. And it is/was not totally out of their reach to do so.

 

That is the goddamned point. Now I can't but leave this ridiculous thread.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

2011 payroll? and a claimed profit of 26.6 million dollars?

 

Based off of USA Today, the Twins payroll last year was somewhere around $74 million. Add in your claimed profit of $26.6 million (where did that come from by the way?), that would allow them to go up to about $100 million (assuming that the Pohlads would be willing to accept a break even year, which I doubt).

 

Even adding in the $20 million in additional TV revenue, tell me again how they would still make a profit with a $140 million dollar payroll?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

The way the Twins budget this is really stretching for a defense. By all means, see if you can get an explanation, but there is nothing circular to the argument. The promises were not about what payroll would be, but what would be added to the roster. Those promises flopped and payroll was not the issue.

 

For what you claim to be true, Ryan had to be so naive about the price of starting pitching that he was ignorant of how off-base his bravado would look later when the true price came out. I have a hard time believing, as smart as I think Terry Ryan is, that he was that naive about free agency. And if he was, that isn't all that reassuring either.

 

Why would it be stretching it? Is it so hard to believe that the intention may have been to do as was said initially, but as the winter went on things did not go according to plan? Every beat reporter, every national pundit talked about how the Twins were in play with virtually every starting pitcher on the market. And yes, prices were considerably higher than expected for starting pitching, even the mediocre ones.

 

The Twins promised to add starting pitching which would improve the staff. By my calculations they did that (are you telling me that Worley, Corriea, and potentially Harden are not upgrades over what we had at the end of last year). It may not be perfect: they dramatically overpaid for Corriea and Harden is a risk, but they did improve.

 

I also hoped that they would be able to sign better quality starting pitching. I too believe that a couple of small breaks in their favor and this team could be in the hunt for a playoff spot. To say TR intentionally misled the Twins fans about upgrading the pitching, especially without hard facts to support it, is defamation and not very responsible.

 

As for the TR kool-aid, if you are saying that I believe TR is the right person for the Twins organization due to his strengths in scouting and payroll control, then keep filling my glass. There are very few people that could come into this organization and do the job the way the Pohlads want.