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

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

for the record I am not arguing optimism is pollyannish - just hopeful common sense wins out over evidence. The disagreement I don't understand is suggesting the Twins aren't being cheap. That just baffles me.

[johnnydakota]

First off' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Adding a true Ace...and maybe a true #2 , for starters

[johnnydakota]

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.

 

Which good free agent wants a 1 year contract?

[johnnydakota]

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.

Yes 100% correct Terry Ryan would have spent every last dime....if players would accept 33%pay cuts sign 1 year contracts with a team option. You know like he pulled with Cuddyer,Kubel and Crapps, and only Matt bite on it , knowing he would not get another contract offer close to the 4 million...

[drjim]

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.

 

I tend to think he didn't want to get locked into bad contracts and wanted to play younger guys. This is of course the crux of the debate.

[drjim]

Adding a true Ace...and maybe a true #2 , for starters

 

Since there was a grand total of one of those available last offseason in free agency that can be a little tricky when the other 29 teams, including those with much higher revenues, want the same thing.

 

The alternative was to gut the farm system to get Shields. I hope you aren't advocating that.

 

And as a final note I think that is what Ryan was trying to do with the Span trade.

[ashbury]

sign 1 year contracts with a team option.

 

This was the secret to my success playing OOTP franchise simulations. Players would turn down a 1-year contract for X dollars, but might sign if I threw in a team option for a second year at a lower price.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

It's amazing to me that people take that quote so literally but would almost never do that any other time. Look at this thread, people are using a BS media-placating quote as evidence the Twins were trying to shell out a big contract! It's just....baffling.

 

I'm not asking for Grienke myself, but I'm damn sure asking for some significant spending the next few years. Anyone who still thinks this team will be "hampering" or "restricting" itself later by spending even 40M hasn't looked at the payroll obligations or can't do basic math. There really is no alternative.

[PseudoSABR]

The disagreement I don't understand is suggesting the Twins aren't being cheap. That just baffles me.

While, I agree the Twins are being cheap, I think there's some sense in their cheapness. It's the old diminishing returns argument. If TR spends the full amount of ownership's budget, how much better is the club really? You often hear the it "ain't my money" argument when it comes to spending, which seems pretty silly to me.

 

Grienke and Sanchez would have been nice, but their contracts would have overlapped with the emerging core in such a way that it could hinder that teams competitiveness. I'd rather sign the Grienke and Sanchez two years from now (though such FA signings, even then seem like a pipe dream), and heck, it doesn't really bother me if the ownership benefits in the meantime for being frugal/cheap.

[Brodin4Calder]

Last year all of the LCS teams were in the top eight of spending, not one of which came in under $110 million. The 2012 World Series featured the Tigers, with the fifth-ranked Opening Day player payroll of $132,994,000, and the Giants, with the sixth-ranked payroll of $131,980,298.

 

For the Twins to even think about winning another WS I think they would have to be spending around 100mil with a few all star caliber players on rookie contracts. We would have to be like WSH is now, or SF last year.

 

WSH has a payroll of 114mil, thats about as much as the Twins could spend if they decided to. The reason they are WS contenders is because of all the players they have on contracts that are way smaller than what they would get if they were FAs today. Heres a few examples: Gio Gonzalez(6mil), Jordan Zimmerman(5mil), Stephen Strasburg(4mil), Bryce Harper(2mil). They also have a few key players on large contracts but this is kinda what the Twins would have to do to become a WS champ. Even with our owner spending as much as he could we just dont make as much money as cities like NY, BOS, DET and so on. With all of the top prospects we have we could get a good enough team to make a run if they all can break out withing 2 or 3 years of eachother and we spend a little more money on the right players.

[TheLeviathan]

While, I agree the Twins are being cheap, I think there's some sense in their cheapness. It's the old diminishing returns argument. If TR spends the full amount of ownership's budget, how much better is the club really? .

 

a) Adding talent to your roster at positions of need should never be seen as a bad thing.

Showing some degree of willingness now gives actual evidence for fan optimism. Which is way better than the phony evidence this thread is full of.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

I do want to take issue with this a bit as well. A great farm system and a strong organization is the best way to stay regularly competitive, no question. BUT.....if you look at two of the best organizations of the last 10-20 years (who also are in a similar market size to us) - Atlanta and St. Louis - they not only use a strong farm but show a willingness to move prospects for elite talent or sign good to elite players in FA. From the Uptons to Holliday to Beltran to Furcal to Hudson to Tex.

 

Good teams know how to supplement their home-grown roster and aren't hesitant to part with assets (money or prospects) to do it. That's what I need to see more of.

[drjim]

I do want to take issue with this a bit as well. A great farm system and a strong organization is the best way to stay regularly competitive, no question. BUT.....if you look at two of the best organizations of the last 10-20 years (who also are in a similar market size to us) - Atlanta and St. Louis - they not only use a strong farm but show a willingness to move prospects for elite talent or sign good to elite players in FA. From the Uptons to Holliday to Beltran to Furcal to Hudson to Tex.

 

Good teams know how to supplement their home-grown roster and aren't hesitant to part with assets (money or prospects) to do it. That's what I need to see more of.

 

They traded Ramos for Capps. What more do you want?

[PseudoSABR]

a) Adding talent to your roster at positions of need should never be seen as a bad thing.

Regardless of the contract, or improvement upon such a need? Nearly all free agent deals are given to players who fill needs, though many of them are outright reckless and do impair future competitiveness.

Showing some degree of willingness now gives actual evidence for fan optimism. Which is way better than the phony evidence this thread is full of.

The Twins signed Burton, Doumit and Willingham to FA deals just the previous offseason; the investments they made this offseason, while inexpensive and perplexing don't seem totally awful. More than that, the FOs recent ability to acquire talent from trades, the draft, and rule 5/waiver wire gives a me baseline of optimism.

 

Why wouldn't the FO supplement a competitive core with smart FA signings, when they've gone about their business with such prudence in other areas?

 

I can understand being cheap when maximizing the budget means being competitive for third place, which we're probably competitive for at a our reduced budget, anyway.

[cmathewson]

I do want to take issue with this a bit as well. A great farm system and a strong organization is the best way to stay regularly competitive, no question. BUT.....if you look at two of the best organizations of the last 10-20 years (who also are in a similar market size to us) - Atlanta and St. Louis - they not only use a strong farm but show a willingness to move prospects for elite talent or sign good to elite players in FA. From the Uptons to Holliday to Beltran to Furcal to Hudson to Tex.

 

Good teams know how to supplement their home-grown roster and aren't hesitant to part with assets (money or prospects) to do it. That's what I need to see more of.

 

I agree with this. I just don't think this past offseason was a good fit for this approach. Whatever talent we acquired would have supplanted the home-grown talent we needed to try out. You could say we should have acquired a shortstop and maybe a center fielder, but I'm not sure that helps this team in the long term. Assuming this is a rebuilding year, it didn't make sense to buy a lot of short-term talent.

[Oxtung]

I agree with this. I just don't think this past offseason was a good fit for this approach. Whatever talent we acquired would have supplanted the home-grown talent we needed to try out. You could say we should have acquired a shortstop and maybe a center fielder, but I'm not sure that helps this team in the long term. Assuming this is a rebuilding year, it didn't make sense to buy a lot of short-term talent.

 

This is actually exactly the year it made sense to spend big to acquire talent. First, we had some gigantic holes to fill. Second, better talent means a better chance at staying competitive (which means more butts in the seats and more beers in the hand) and third, if you do slip from contention you can look to flip that talent for prospects to further help you "do things the right way" in this rebuild.

 

So recap...we had the need, the FA's were out there, we had the money, could have helped us short term, could have helped us long term. Seems to me the only reason to NOT follow this approach is because of fiscal reasons.

[Guest USAFChief]

Grienke and Sanchez would have been nice, but their contracts would have overlapped with the emerging core in such a way that it could hinder that teams competitiveness. I'd rather sign the Grienke and Sanchez two years from now (though such FA signings, even then seem like a pipe dream), and heck, it doesn't really bother me if the ownership benefits in the meantime for being frugal/cheap.

I don't understand why signing Grienke and Sanchez now could "hinder a future team's competitiveness," when you then turn around and advocate signing "the Grienke and Sanchez (of) two years from now." Those guys aren't going to be cheaper two years from now, and you'll be signing them 2 years closer to when this "emerging core" will need to be paid. You're just postponing those big contracts down the road, when you have both the need and the payroll space now.

[jokin]

1) The Twins signed Burton, Doumit and Willingham to FA deals just the previous offseason;

 

2) the investments they made this offseason, while inexpensive and perplexing don't seem totally awful.

 

3) Why wouldn't the FO supplement a competitive core with smart FA signings, when they've gone about their business with such prudence in other areas?

4)I can understand being cheap when maximizing the budget means being competitive for third place, which we're probably competitive for at a our reduced budget, anyway.

 

1) Again, and again. These signings were REPLACEMENTS, not ADDITIONS.

 

2) My, that is a ringing endorsement.

 

3) Yes. Why? Why? There were multiple options for short(er)-term deals and huge payroll flexibility. It can be argued that it would be MORE prudent to spend money to fix and fill the gaping holes- competitive games into September if it works out, flippable talent in July if it doesn't.

 

4) I can't understand why "real" Twins fans are so willing to accept year-after-year of FO false hopes being raised of possibly "being competitive for third place", given the FO's apparent need for "prudency" in a "reduced budget." This is simply unacceptable with the existing core players and the available payroll room. The season thus far demonstrates how close this team could be to legit contender status--- if--- they would have simply stuck to the "deal" they offered to the public to get their stadium built.

[PseudoSABR]

I don't understand.

Really? Why not have a Greinke or Sanchez two years younger, and with two more years data. Why pay for older starting pitchers when your core is under such lengthy team control?

 

You're not convincing me that we're not wasting money through 2013-14, and not overpaying for any seasons there after. There's better investments to be had down the road that can better help a sustained playoff run.

[PseudoSABR]

"real" Twins fans

I already apologized for the presumptuousness of distinguishing real fans from any other kind of fans, in the original thread where I made the mistake. We're all fans, we all fight for what we believe makes our club a better ball club. So give this up.

[Kwak]

"We're overpaying"? Unless you mean the public subsidy to the Twins, we're not overpaying at all. The same positions/arguements have been discussed ad nauseum. Terms like "overpaying", "blocking developing players", and references to meaningless wins because the team can't "win enough" anyway. Half-statements like "...can't give our money away" and using that as a defense for sub par talent--it doesn't end. It should be clear by now that management's priority is short-term profit maximazation and any "promises made" to obtain the public subsidy are essentially the same political rhetoric used in election years--get our votes, then forget us until they need us again.

[drjim]

So people would support 6/120 for Sanchez or 8/200 for Greinke? Otherwise you are raging against a fantasy. I think those contractswith would be a mistake.

 

The rest of the FA class was pretty weak. After all the debate this is still the point that can't be repeated enough.

[old nurse]

I already apologized for the presumptuousness of distinguishing real fans from any other kind of fans, in the original thread where I made the mistake. We're all fans, we all fight for what we believe makes our club a better ball club. So give this up.

There are those on this board who will not give it up. Learn to ignore bait.

[cmathewson]

This is actually exactly the year it made sense to spend big to acquire talent. First, we had some gigantic holes to fill. Second, better talent means a better chance at staying competitive (which means more butts in the seats and more beers in the hand) and third, if you do slip from contention you can look to flip that talent for prospects to further help you "do things the right way" in this rebuild.

 

Let's recap

 

1. As someone said, short-term contracts tend to attract replacements, not good solid players. If you want good solid players, look to the Willingham three-year contract.

 

2. It is doubtful that there were enough long-term replacements on the free-agent market to fill 10 holes in the team (three rotation spots, three spots in the bullpen, three infielders, two outfielders).

 

3. The place where we know there were no viable long-term options was in starters, outside of a couple of guys the Twins missed, like Dempster

 

4. Lacking available talent, the Twins decided to give their internal options a chance, except where there weren't any. Then they signed short-term options to fill the remaining holes

 

5. The end game is not this year but a run starting as early as 2014. If that is your end game, it makes more sense to give internal options a chance and see what you have rather than releasing those out of options and sending the rest to Rochester

 

So recap...we had the need, the FA's were out there, we had the money, could have helped us short term, could have helped us long term. Seems to me the only reason to NOT follow this approach is because of fiscal reasons.

 

This is where I disagree on a few points. First, long-term FAs weren't there. Short-term FAs don't typically help over internal options. Besides availability, they did not follow your path because they prefer to give internal options a chance over signing short-term options, who only offer a marginal upgrade over internal options, if that. You can sometimes get lucky with a short term guy like Victorino. But as many of them fail as succeed. We have seen this time and again.

[Guest USAFChief]

Really? Why not have a Greinke or Sanchez two years younger, and with two more years data. Why pay for older starting pitchers when your core is under such lengthy team control?

1) You can't have both "younger" and "two more years data," Pseudo. Two years from now, when you're proposing signing a Grienke, that guy will have aged or will not have an extra two years in the league. One or the other, can't be both. 2) As for "why pay for older starting pitchers," you sign them now, because IF they are worthless during the last couple years of their contract, you've timed it so that core IS still under team control, and still relatively cheap, rather than sign them when that core is already up and producing. If you do that, those last expensive years of said contract will have a much greater chance of coinciding with the time when you really, really need the money to lock up that core.

[TheLeviathan]

To make Chiefs point more directly (I have been dancing around it too thinking it was plainly obvious) but how can you say "not now it will hamstring us to sign a guy to a six year deal.....but it's cool in a couple years". The likely age of the FA to sign is about the same (late 20s or early 30s) and the contract length is likely the same (perhaps less total dollars now), but the thing different is a six year deal two years from now actually stretches to the mark where we would ideally be locking up our young guys long term. 6 years from now....not so much. Someone please explain the ass backwards logic here.

[IdahoPilgrim]

"We're overpaying"? Unless you mean the public subsidy to the Twins, we're not overpaying at all. The same positions/arguements have been discussed ad nauseum. Terms like "overpaying", "blocking developing players", and references to meaningless wins because the team can't "win enough" anyway. Half-statements like "...can't give our money away" and using that as a defense for sub par talent--it doesn't end. It should be clear by now that management's priority is short-term profit maximazation and any "promises made" to obtain the public subsidy are essentially the same political rhetoric used in election years--get our votes, then forget us until they need us again.

 

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

[ashbury]

You could say we should have acquired a shortstop and maybe a center fielder, but I'm not sure that helps this team in the long term. Assuming this is a rebuilding year, it didn't make sense to buy a lot of short-term talent.

 

Rebuilding is exactly when it makes sense to acquire short-term talent. You can't leave the fans with nothing to come to the ballpark for; revenue will dry up and it's very difficult to get it back even with good teams sometimes. Here's a good article that in part covers what happened in Cleveland: Felix Hernandez, Superstars, and Frictional Costs | FanGraphs Baseball

[Brock Beauchamp]

To make Chiefs point more directly (I have been dancing around it too thinking it was plainly obvious) but how can you say "not now it will hamstring us to sign a guy to a six year deal.....but it's cool in a couple years". The likely age of the FA to sign is about the same (late 20s or early 30s) and the contract length is likely the same (perhaps less total dollars now), but the thing different is a six year deal two years from now actually stretches to the mark where we would ideally be locking up our young guys long term. 6 years from now....not so much. Someone please explain the ass backwards logic here.

 

I think a six year deal to a pitcher is awful no matter where a team sits in the standings.

 

I would have liked to see the Twins play in the 2 year deal range this offseason (Dempster-type pitchers).

 

In two years, I think the prudent thing to do is to expand that to four year deals in an attempt to nab a Sanchez-type pitcher to push the team into the playoffs (hopefully). Offer more money per year for one year less and see if you can get someone to bite.

 

But I don't see the reasoning to go in on a 5+ year deal on a pitcher. That's incredibly risky and many a front office has been burned by such deals in the recent past.

[ashbury]

I don't understand why signing Grienke and Sanchez now could "hinder a future team's competitiveness," when you then turn around and advocate signing "the Grienke and Sanchez (of) two years from now." Those guys aren't going to be cheaper two years from now, and you'll be signing them 2 years closer to when this "emerging core" will need to be paid. You're just postponing those big contracts down the road, when you have both the need and the payroll space now.

 

Back in December when the Sanchez signing was current, I did a bit of casual research and wrote it up. I didn't blog it at the time but have done so now: Would you have gone 5 years and $80M for Anibal Sanchez? - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum . I didn't purposely cherry-pick but maybe there's a flaw; still, the guys that turned up make me think twice.