Why have the Twins been dumping so much salary and players the last couple years?

[cmathewson]

Um, Morneau will be gone...that 13M right there. Correia 5M, Pelfrey 4M, Willingham 7M, Carroll 3.75M, Doumit 3.5M. That's, what, 35M of our 76M?

 

You say: 'What they choose to do is speculation in response to how I think it'll go down.'

 

But earlier you said:

 

'If they draw better this year (which they will, imho) payroll will go up. And it will go up in proportion to how well they draw this year. And, yes, they will spend it. '

 

You say that as fact. Mine is speculation yours is fact...even though history is on my side.

 

Fine. Mine is speculation as well. I prefer to speculate with optimism, that the Twins will try to build a winning team with their available funds. You choose to speculate that the Twins don't really care about winning, all they really care about is keeping more of the taxpayers' money. Each to his own.

[ThePuck]

You choose to speculate that the Twins don't really care about winning, all they really care about is keeping more of the taxpayers' money. Each to his own.

 

That's not true...not at all...I choose to look at it realistically, based on trends...you seem to live in a world of extreme's. You say this about me, you tell another guy to move out of the county if he doesn't like things.

 

I do, however, believe the #1 goal of the Pohlads is to make money. They want a division competitive team, but won't do what it takes to go to the next level. That maximizes profit.

[cmathewson]

That's not true...not at all...I choose to look at it realistically, based on trends...you seem to live in a world of extreme's. You say this about me, you tell another guy to move out of the county if he doesn't like things.

 

I do, however, believe the #1 goal of the Pohlads is to make money. They want a division competitive team, but won't do what it takes to go to the next level. That maximizes profit.

 

Well I disagree. They're billionaires. The don't want to lose money. But I believe they care more about winning than profits.

 

And I never told anyone to move. I said he could choose to spend his money across the river if the .03% sales tax in Hennepin County bothers him so much.

[ThePuck]

Well I disagree. They're billionaires. The don't want to lose money. But I believe they care more about winning than profits.

 

And I never told anyone to move. I said he could choose to spend his money across the river if the .03% sales tax in Hennepin County bothers him so much.

 

I'm not surprised you disagree with me.

[old nurse]

I don't understand this idea that FA dollars somehow translate into WAR. This is just a bizarre way of constructing an argument and I'd suggest it's completely facetious. Or, at least, I hope it is.

 

The problem with payroll is that if you aren't paying for talent, it's unlikely you have a lot of talent. Now you might have a young, very good roster that is cheap (as we hope to soon) but most times money at least reflects your talent. It's hard to add or maintain it without money so it just makes sense.

 

I, for one, am not suggesting they HAD to sign Grienke or anyone else. But the reality is that this team has enough cash to hand out two absurd contracts and as many as 4-5 semi-absurd (Sanchez-like) contracts and do little to no harm to their long-term financial situation. And that's using 50% revenue as a measuring stick.

 

What I think cannot be argued is that our head honcho has yet to show a willingness to consistently dabble in the 3/40 range much less the 5/75. We're going to need to see that, possibly as soon as next year, to jumpstart this thing even quicker. Waiting on prospects only is a good way to keep waiting.

4-5 Sanchez type contacts would be adding 4-5 contracts that average 15 million a year. 4 Sanchez type contracts would be committing over 350 million dollars. You say it would have little impact long term? And you hoped what I pointed out was facetious?

[TheLeviathan]

I'm thinking Worley, Diamond, Duensing, Plouffe, Parmelee, Swarzak could all hit arby in the next 2-3 years, at the time some of the guys are coming off the books. No studs but not nothing. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous, I was just brainstorming some areas where payroll will come from in the next couple of years.

 

But you are right, the safer assumption is that the team will probably spend no money ever again.

 

The funny thing is, you make a throw-away scarecrow to paint me in some extreme, yet the only one really in an extreme position is you. Does that friggin group up there even increase the payroll by 7-8 million? Throw aside the remaining question marks each of them has to even remain as a viable player on this team, even if they become solid regulars the average arb. numbers from 2012 were 3.5M. So considering that most guys in the 5-6 years of service timer are the ones bringing that average up, you're talking about 5-10M as a reasonable estimate of their cost. That STILL leaves 50M. Even if you estimate it on the extreme high end - you're talking 40M dollars. To put that in perspective - you could sign SIX Josh Willingham contracts for that. So please, you're a smart guy, don't throw crap at the wall and pretend you thought it was stick. This payroll drop is very disconcerting if we continue to see the same patterns of spending.

 

And again for the record - I don't know what the Twins will do, but this offseason didn't reassure my skepticism. Maybe this wasn't the right fit this year, I'm not saying that's impossible. But a lot of the public discourse is still about the "right fit" and "what we're comfortable with", etc. The same stuff we've been hearing since Ryan came aboard. We know what they are "comfortable" with for the most part. So if the chatter is still the same, I need to see the actions change before I can be an optimist. And I really want to be optimistic because this team's future foundation looks DAMN good. I WANT to believe it's going to be augmented significantly outside the club. I just have been given no reason to believe it.

[TheLeviathan]

4-5 Sanchez type contacts would be adding 4-5 contracts that average 15 million a year. 4 Sanchez type contracts would be committing over 350 million dollars. You say it would have little impact long term? And you hoped what I pointed out was facetious?

 

Well, congrats on equivocating. 60M a year for a club that is projected to only have 40-50M committed right now (And that's with reasonable arb. estimates) for the next 5 years would not cripple this team. Hell, they'd still be technically under the 50% mark. The "impact" of that depends on how well it's spent. But it will not hinder the club retaining in any way, shape, or form any of the young core they are building.

 

I don't understand this defeatist attitude about spending money. You do realize that spending money is how you both retain and add talent in professional sports right? Since the Twins will have few viable candidates for the "retain" half of that, why not "add"?

[Kwak]

"Add?" How many times have we heard Ryan (or another FO type) speak of building/winning "the right way"? Or make some statement including the term "overpay"? Plenty! The Twins are planning to rebuild from the addition of newly signed amateurs and augment with "value-priced" veterans (read the Carrolls, Pelfrey's, and Corriera's) and Rule 5 types--or what I term "dumpster-diving". Operating on a $60-$65MM payroll ensures profitability even with dismal attendance. Said reasoning? Other teams have had success/are succeeding with that payroll.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

The funny thing is, you make a throw-away scarecrow to paint me in some extreme, yet the only one really in an extreme position is you. Does that friggin group up there even increase the payroll by 7-8 million? Throw aside the remaining question marks each of them has to even remain as a viable player on this team, even if they become solid regulars the average arb. numbers from 2012 were 3.5M. So considering that most guys in the 5-6 years of service timer are the ones bringing that average up, you're talking about 5-10M as a reasonable estimate of their cost. That STILL leaves 50M. Even if you estimate it on the extreme high end - you're talking 40M dollars. To put that in perspective - you could sign SIX Josh Willingham contracts for that. So please, you're a smart guy, don't throw crap at the wall and pretend you thought it was stick. This payroll drop is very disconcerting if we continue to see the same patterns of spending.

 

And again for the record - I don't know what the Twins will do, but this offseason didn't reassure my skepticism. Maybe this wasn't the right fit this year, I'm not saying that's impossible. But a lot of the public discourse is still about the "right fit" and "what we're comfortable with", etc. The same stuff we've been hearing since Ryan came aboard. We know what they are "comfortable" with for the most part. So if the chatter is still the same, I need to see the actions change before I can be an optimist. And I really want to be optimistic because this team's future foundation looks DAMN good. I WANT to believe it's going to be augmented significantly outside the club. I just have been given no reason to believe it.

 

You forget about the a $100M payroll 3 years ago? Wouldn't that qualify as evidence?

[Oxtung]

You forget about the a $100M payroll 3 years ago? Wouldn't that qualify as evidence?

 

Nobody is arguing that the Twins won't sign their guys to extensions. What we are saying is that the Twins (or perhaps Terry Ryan) are fundamentally opposed to signing other teams FA's to big contracts.

 

The FA's on that team were Orlando Hudson, 1 year $5 million, and 39 year old Jim Thome for 1 year $1.5 million.

 

Given that the Twins will have no big contracts from internal candidates, other than Mauer, in the next 4+ years combined with the dislike of FA's and an increasing revenue where exactly do you think that money is going to go?

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

One of my first widely read stories on TwinsGeek.com (back in 2002) was a study of how payroll correlated with wins. It has charts that don't look like bunnies and everything. Here is an archived copy of it.

 

Success and Payroll

 

I'll ruin the surprise a little. There is a correlation which isn't huge but is significant.

 

But what does this mean for any particular team? Certainly not "if you spend x more you get y more wins".

I think the management capabilities of the team have far more to do with winning consistently, except perhaps if you are at the far ends of the spectrum like the Yankees and Red Sox (until very recently) and the Astros. The fact that there is a correlation to me is just statement of how things are, not a predictor of future success.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Nobody is arguing that the Twins won't sign their guys to extensions. What we are saying is that the Twins (or perhaps Terry Ryan) are fundamentally opposed to signing other teams FA's to big contracts.

 

The FA's on that team were Orlando Hudson, 1 year $5 million, and 39 year old Jim Thome for 1 year $1.5 million.

 

Given that the Twins will have no big contracts from internal candidates, other than Mauer, in the next 4+ years combined with the dislike of FA's and an increasing revenue where exactly do you think that money is going to go?

And my stance is they haven't been in a new stadium long enough to make any generalizations whatsoever about how they will spend free agent money. I don't understand why people are so upset they didn't piss away money on top of the line pitchers on a crappy team. I get bring mildly upset they didn't get slightly better pitchers, but Antony pretty much said they couldn't get anyone to come here. Whether you believe him or not its not unreasonable to suggest it might at least be a factor in getting players to come here. Yet people are up in arms like its a given that they could have signed Greinke and Sanchez (for example) for exactly what they got.

 

Lets go with what we do know: $100M payroll in 2010, slightly lower in 2011. Mauer is signed for $23M a year which is fair market value (arguably more). This is what the Pohlads have done. Yet lets get all cranky because we didn't screw up the payroll for when (if) the team is actually ready to compete in 3 years.

 

It doesn't matter who they would have signed this offseason. They traded away asserts in order to rebuild. You don't turn around and go schizophrenic on the deal and load up with veteran pitchers! What is do hard to understand here? They still have Pedro mother trucking Florimon at SS. Tons of unproven guys like Dozier, Parmelee, sacks of wet cement like Doumit and some dude named Wilkin. Oh yeah, and one starting pitcher out of five. They aren't umm, they aren't good.

[jokin]

 

Lets go with what we do know: $100M payroll in 2010' date=' slightly lower in 2011. [/quote']

 

You may know these "facts"-- everyone else knows the 2011 payroll was, in fact, ~$112-$114M. The payroll cutting started last year in 2012, and continued this year, and will further continue next season.

[TheLeviathan]

You forget about the a $100M payroll 3 years ago? Wouldn't that qualify as evidence?

 

Was Terry Ryan GM then? He is the single biggest factor in my skepticism. His rhetoric is very clear about FA: We have to think the money matches their value. Unfortunately, in FA you sometimes have to go over-value as long as you think they can help and you aren't burdening your payroll.

 

And the ridiculous thing some in this thread don't understand is that this is the time to be adding assets! We're talking 5-6 years before our Arby payments become significant which means this is precisely the time we should be adding payroll that won't hinder our ability to retain those players. Waiting for 3-4 years neither helps this team in the present nor future. Again, next year we may have enough "flexibility" to sign 6 Josh Willingham contracts - I sincerely hope Ryan does that to some degree. But until his rhetoric and his actions change, I remain a skeptic and that doesn't make me very happy to say.

[ThePuck]

You may know these "facts"-- everyone else knows the 2011 payroll was, in fact, ~$112-$114M. The payroll cutting started last year in 2012, and continued this year, and will further continue next season.

 

Not only that, but in the offseason prior to 2011, even though payroll went up, it wasn't because we were signing a bunch of FAs, it was mostly due to pay raises coming up (like Mauer's). We gutted the bullpen that offseason, and jettisoned our starting middle IF, while deciding there's no need to try and improve our rotation cause surely they'll do as well as they did in that fluky season.

 

You know, exactly the right things to do in an offseason after finishing a great regular season and are just looking to add the missing pieces to put the team over the top to go deeper in the playoffs... :-). More like, 'we won won a lot of games and easily won the division, we can use filler and gut some key parts and still be competitive in the division...'

[cmathewson]

But what does this mean for any particular team? Certainly not "if you spend x more you get y more wins".

I think the management capabilities of the team have far more to do with winning consistently' date=' except perhaps if you are at the far ends of the spectrum like the Yankees and Red Sox (until very recently) and the Astros. The fact that there is a correlation to me is just statement of how things are, not a predictor of future success.[/quote']

 

I agree with this. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

You can view those decisions through a variety of lenses. Depending on the lens, you'll draw different conclusions. For example, letting Cuddyer go and signing Willingham. You could say the decision was based on dollars, or roster construction, or projections or... If you just think the decision was based on dollars, you are missing a big part of the picture.

 

When you look at all the moves that were made between 2011 and now, one by one, there are few that I would argue with all things considered. It would have been nice to hang onto Nathan. Kubel's probably a better overall player than Doumit. Hardy, of course, was a mistake. But most of the guys they got rid of stink or are out of baseball.

 

The problem is not with getting rid of those guys, it's in having a farm system that can replace them. If you want to contend continuously, you need a strong farm system, no matter how much money you devote to the cause. If you have a strong farm system, you control the engagement. Relying on free agents alone almost never works.

 

That's where I fault the Twins management. I personally don't care that much about how they spend the money, as long as they win. The good news is, they have addressed the structural problem with a management shakeup (Radcliff got promoted out of day-to-day decisions). And the farm system is now stronger than it's been in decades. So we now have a gap of a few years before we can expect to contend regularly again. I can live with that.

[old nurse]

Well, congrats on equivocating. 60M a year for a club that is projected to only have 40-50M committed right now (And that's with reasonable arb. estimates) for the next 5 years would not cripple this team. Hell, they'd still be technically under the 50% mark. The "impact" of that depends on how well it's spent. But it will not hinder the club retaining in any way, shape, or form any of the young core they are building.

 

I don't understand this defeatist attitude about spending money. You do realize that spending money is how you both retain and add talent in professional sports right? Since the Twins will have few viable candidates for the "retain" half of that, why not "add"?

It would not be 60 million it would be closer to 70. The problem comes in that there are very few free agents that on the back end of the contract that are worth the money. Adding 4-5 contracts like that does hamstring. Should the Twins add an Sanchez type pitcher? Of course. Can you add 4-5 of them. There isn't even hardly one of them per year to add. For every Sanchez there would be a Zito and Vernon Wells. That is the part that ruins.

[TheLeviathan]

It would not be 60 million it would be closer to 70. The problem comes in that there are very few free agents that on the back end of the contract that are worth the money. Adding 4-5 contracts like that does hamstring. Should the Twins add an Sanchez type pitcher? Of course. Can you add 4-5 of them. There isn't even hardly one of them per year to add. For every Sanchez there would be a Zito and Vernon Wells. That is the part that ruins.

 

Im not suggesting they sign 4 of them, just pointing out they COULD if they chose to. And my skepticism is centered on whether they would even add one. One such player, even as a wworthless payroll drain four years from now, still wouldn't hinder this team. They are that far below budget. That's the beauty of them being aggressive sooner rather than later. But I have serious doubts Ryan would even do it at all.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Not only that, but in the offseason prior to 2011, even though payroll went up, it wasn't because we were signing a bunch of FAs, it was mostly due to pay raises coming up (like Mauer's). We gutted the bullpen that offseason, and jettisoned our starting middle IF, while deciding there's no need to try and improve our rotation cause surely they'll do as well as they did in that fluky season.

 

You know, exactly the right things to do in an offseason after finishing a great regular season and are just looking to add the missing pieces to put the team over the top to go deeper in the playoffs... :-). More like, 'we won won a lot of games and easily won the division, we can use filler and gut some key parts and still be competitive in the division...'

 

First off, I know they went over $100M, the point is that management was willing to do so, not the actual number.

2nd, while getting rid of Hardy was a mistake, they weren't trying to do a salary dump there, as they paid $15M to get Nishi to essentially replace him. O-Hud was a nice player and I wish they would have kept him. But overall, what drastic changes would you make to a team that won ~96 games?

 

I can't believe I'm forced to defend the org so staunchly. Some of you feel like you're getting hosed because the payroll went down on a bad team, that's actually not a bad thing. Again, it's been 3 years since the park opened. Lets not panic. Even as Levi has his doubts about Ryan, Rob Antony pretty much said they couldn't get guys to come here. They can't make that excuse when the team is better. If the payroll isn't up in 2-3 years then I'm with you.

[ThePuck]

But overall' date=' what drastic changes would you make to a team that won ~96 games?

 

[/quote']

 

Every season I would look to improve regardless of what happened prior. Nothing wrong with looking at our 94 win 2010 season and saying, 'that was a great year, but now where do we need to improve to get us over the top?' Gutting the 8th ranked bullpen hurts the team, doesn't improve it. Replacing Hardy with Casilla at shortstop (gardy's idea) not an improvement. Counting on Nishi to come to the bigs and automatically perform at a necessary level for a supposed contender, not an improvement over a player like Hudson. And, seriously, the rotation options. Did anyone think we'd get a repeat performance.

 

Every team should always be looking for ways to improve their team not matter what happened the season prior.

 

And there's no way payroll will be up in 2-3 years. We'll lose another 35M off the books by then, replacing those guys with players not arbitration eligible or barely arbitration eligible.

[Guest USAFChief]

And there's no way payroll will be up in 2-3 years. We'll lose another 35M off the books by then, replacing those guys with players not arbitration eligible or barely arbitration eligible.

In 2-3 years the same people arguing it's a bad idea to sign FAs now will be arguing: "it's a bad idea to go out and spend money when you don't know what you have with all these young players. You can't tie up all that salary in expensive free agents anyway, because in a couple years all these good young players will be starting to hit arbitration, and there's too much risk you won't be able to sign them all at that point. Besides, good free agents won't come here, you can't build through free agency, what about the last couple years of that contract! You have to build "the right way!" yada yada yada."

[old nurse]

In 2-3 years the same people arguing it's a bad idea to sign FAs now will be arguing: "it's a bad idea to go out and spend money when you don't know what you have with all these young players. You can't tie up all that salary in expensive free agents anyway, because in a couple years all these good young players will be starting to hit arbitration, and there's too much risk you won't be able to sign them all at that point. Besides, good free agents won't come here, you can't build through free agency, what about the last couple years of that contract! You have to build "the right way!" yada yada yada."

There is nothing wrong with the signing of a good free agent. There is nothing really wrong with signing a free agent to a one year contract. There is nothing wrong with trying to fill a need or two through free agency. You are not going to build a team through free agency unless you have an unlimited budget. Get over the fact that players can choose where they want to play and thinking that money is the only issue.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In 2-3 years the same people arguing it's a bad idea to sign FAs now will be arguing: "it's a bad idea to go out and spend money when you don't know what you have with all these young players. You can't tie up all that salary in expensive free agents anyway, because in a couple years all these good young players will be starting to hit arbitration, and there's too much risk you won't be able to sign them all at that point. Besides, good free agents won't come here, you can't build through free agency, what about the last couple years of that contract! You have to build "the right way!" yada yada yada."

 

Some of us won't. Don't assume you can fit everyone under one convenient umbrella to suit your argument.

 

Besides, I thought they should have spent more last offseason... They just needed to spend it on short-term contracts.

[Guest USAFChief]

Some of us won't. Don't assume you can fit everyone under one convenient umbrella to suit your argument.

You're right, my bad.

[cmathewson]

In 2-3 years the same people arguing it's a bad idea to sign FAs now will be arguing: "it's a bad idea to go out and spend money when you don't know what you have with all these young players. You can't tie up all that salary in expensive free agents anyway, because in a couple years all these good young players will be starting to hit arbitration, and there's too much risk you won't be able to sign them all at that point. Besides, good free agents won't come here, you can't build through free agency, what about the last couple years of that contract! You have to build "the right way!" yada yada yada."

 

Can we say double or nothing? I am in favor of FAs that make sense. Willingham made sense. It made sense that they sign some pitchers this year. It might make sense for them to sign more pitchers and players next year than this year. It depends on how these guys do. And you can't find that out until you give them a chance.

 

It didn't make sense to sign Greinke or Sanchez. Those were the only high-buck free agents who could have pushed the Twins payroll into the 50% range. It doesn't make sense to insist on spending an arbitrary number if it hurts your team long term.

 

They could have signed a bunch of marginal guys to fill positions, but that would hinder organizational development for guys like Parmelee, Plouffe and Dozier. One way or another, we need to know about those guys. So you take a year to evaluate things. When you find out what you have, you fill holes with FAs and acquisitions.

 

What I don't understand is the claim that this year is the start of some kind of trend. There is no evidence of this. Ryan is historically cheap, but he spent around 50% of revenue in every year except 99, which was a rebuilding year. This is a rebuilding year. What he does when he has a chance to win could reverse the current trend line. To assume the opposite is cynical speculation.

[PseudoSABR]

In 2-3 years the same people arguing it's a bad idea to sign FAs now will be arguing: "it's a bad idea to go out and spend money when you don't know what you have with all these young players. You can't tie up all that salary in expensive free agents anyway, because in a couple years all these good young players will be starting to hit arbitration, and there's too much risk you won't be able to sign them all at that point. Besides, good free agents won't come here, you can't build through free agency, what about the last couple years of that contract! You have to build "the right way!" yada yada yada."

No, not all the same people will say such things.

 

I didn't think spending big in FA to compliment a two-time hundred loss team was a good idea (even if they had money to spend); but I think it's a much better idea to support a young core by spending more, and even taking risks (in terms of salary, not years) in free agency.

 

Yes, the Twins are being cheap, but I don't think it particularly matters now. I hope the make some salary investments (either through FA, trade, or a resigning) to help compliment the emerging young core. Whether the Twins will actually follow through on such an idea remains to be seen, but it's really not so pollyanneish to think the Twins might do something so common-sensical.

[drjim]

On FAs I would also argue there were very limited options this offseason to begin with. Outside of SS and perhaps a one year stopgap for CF there wasn't much need for position players. FAs that fit that profile didn't really exist.

 

For pitching hard to quibble too much with the current state of the bullpen. For starters they did sign two guys. They tried to sign more and were rebuffed for reasons that seemed to go beyond money. I think the suggestion they realistically had a shot at Sanchez or Greinke was fantasy unless they overpaid on a massive scale.

 

I appreciate the frustration with the lack of free agents but I think it is more raging at a hypothetical rather than a realistic alternative.

[drjim]

Regarding payroll I believe the evidence shows Terry Ryan is closer to the target set by revenue much more often than not. I trust they will get back there in the next 2-3 years once the roster is turned over appropriately.

 

I also find the suggestion that Ryan cares about anything ahead of winning to be hilarious. He has said payroll is not a concern. I see no reason to doubt him.

[TheLeviathan]

d He has said payroll is not a concern. I see no reason to doubt him.

 

Well.....other than the falling payroll.

[snepp]

Well.....other than the falling payroll.

 

Only because they couldn't give their money away. Ryan would have spent every last dollar available I'm sure, if only Minnesota weren't hell on Earth.