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

[TheLeviathan]

I suppose it inevitably gets to the point where you replace my actual points with your own twisted rendition of them and top it off with excessive hyperbole.

 

Good debate though, it helped me to clarify my own thinking on the subject.

 

Hyperbole is the name of my game some would say.....

 

I'm glad we clarified your thinking, but this debate went far longer than needed in part because some transparency in your thinking would be helpful. Where I did use hyperbole are on issues I'm still a bit baffled (your understanding of how much payroll will be required for arby and your "extensions are better than FA deals" stance) but as I told Psuedo earlier, I think we're all speculating about what will be done in the future. I think we all share the hope that the team will add talent, however our GM's track record (including this offseason) leaves me a pretty bitter skeptic.

[drjim]

drjim you've said this many times and it just doesn't hold water for the most part. Several people have stated a preference for Greinke or Sanchez. I myself have stated several times that there were 15 average or better pitchers available. I typed up a list earlier this thread with 6-ish pitchers that posted the most innings over the last 3 seasons. The players are really there whether we call them by name or not.

 

The reason I have not referred to any specific pitcher is because FA isn't a buffet. You can't just say, "I'd have signed Sanchez and Saunders this offseason," because anyone player could very well outright refuse to sign with the Twins or have a medical injury we don't know about. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that all 15 above average pitchers would/did. So while we are speaking in generalities, pitchers fitting the general description did exist this past off season.

 

If the Twins prospects develop as you hope, capable of making a WS run, then there are going to be some very good players needing to get paid big money down the road. I haven't done the math but I highly suspect that if you wait 3 years to sign your ace pitcher you will not be able to resign all of your in house talent.

 

So the question becomes, is it better to sign that Ace pitcher now or a second tier FA pitcher 3 years from now?

 

I saw your list. I still don't think anyone on it other Greinke should be considered an ace (and I think he is more of a 2) with Sanchez as more of a 2-3 type and Dempster a rung below. Everyone else on your list is more or less in the category of Correia and Pelfrey, maybe a win better. The Twins could have (and probably should have) signed another pitcher in that group or signed someone instead of Correia and/or Pelfrey, but I thought we were debating signing aces.

 

The reason I have not referred to any specific pitcher is because FA isn't a buffet. You can't just say, "I'd have signed Sanchez and Saunders this offseason," because anyone player could very well outright refuse to sign with the Twins or have a medical injury we don't know about. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that all 15 above average pitchers would/did. So while we are speaking in generalities, pitchers fitting the general description did exist this past off season.

 

I'm glad you concede this point. Many others will not.

[TheLeviathan]

Many of us don't feel the need to concede it because we haven't suggested otherwise. I've refused to name specific names - just said we should've allocated X amount of dollars to pitching - whomever that may be. I think most people would stand by that, we all know there are a lot of variables in getting a deal done. But we had the resources (afterall, our own FO said it's all about "dollars and years") to make something better than what we did.

[Oxtung]

I saw your list. I still don't think anyone on it other Greinke should be considered an ace (and I think he is more of a 2) with Sanchez as more of a 2-3 type and Dempster a rung below. Everyone else on your list is more or less in the category of Correia and Pelfrey, maybe a win better. The Twins could have (and probably should have) signed another pitcher in that group or signed someone instead of Correia and/or Pelfrey, but I thought we were debating signing aces.

 

I can see how you could get confused after 10 pages of this (feels like 50) but while some people wanted an ace not everyone was on that bandwagon. I certainly wouldn't have minded it but I also would have been happy with any of those 15 above average pitchers with the hope that if the Twins aren't contending there is serious thought given to flipping that pitcher for prospects at the deadline.

 

I want the Twins to go into every season fielding the best team that they could have. Every year there is a team that comes from no where to contend. I want the Twins to give themselves the best opportunity to do that this year and in future years. The problem that I have is that the Twins haven't done that this year. They signed potentially the 2 worst FA starters (based on history), blew some smoke out about "planning on contending in September", then calmly pocketed $15-30 million.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

I can see how you could get confused after 10 pages of this (feels like 50) but while some people wanted an ace not everyone was on that bandwagon. I certainly wouldn't have minded it but I also would have been happy with any of those 15 above average pitchers with the hope that if the Twins aren't contending there is serious thought given to flipping that pitcher for prospects at the deadline.

 

I want the Twins to go into every season fielding the best team that they could have. Every year there is a team that comes from no where to contend. I want the Twins to give themselves the best opportunity to do that this year and in future years. The problem that I have is that the Twins haven't done that this year. They signed potentially the 2 worst FA starters (based on history), blew some smoke out about "planning on contending in September", then calmly pocketed $15-30 million.

 

And yet Correia turned out to be a good pitcher.

 

It's almost as if guys who get payed to evaluate talent are better at it than the fans.

[Oxtung]

And yet Correia turned out to be a good pitcher.

 

It's almost as if guys who get payed to evaluate talent are better at it than the fans.

 

I'm willing to bet that by the end of the season Correia is below average as determined by ERA+. Interested in a sig line wager?

 

That said, how he produces in 2013 has nothing to do with whether he was a good signing in 2012; unless you think GM's should be clairvoyant and factor 2013 results into 2012 contract negotiations?

[IdahoPilgrim]

I'm willing to bet that by the end of the season Correia is below average as determined by ERA+. Interested in a sig line wager?

 

That said, how he produces in 2013 has nothing to do with whether he was a good signing in 2012; unless you think GM's should be clairvoyant and factor 2013 results into 2012 contract negotiations?

 

Isn't that exactly what a GM's job is? To try to figure out who's going to produce and help the team in the future?

 

Contracts are not offered based on past results. Contracts are offered based on anticipated future results. At the end of the year, you know whether the GM did his/her job well or not.

[cmathewson]

I'm willing to bet that by the end of the season Correia is below average as determined by ERA+. Interested in a sig line wager?

 

That said, how he produces in 2013 has nothing to do with whether he was a good signing in 2012; unless you think GM's should be clairvoyant and factor 2013 results into 2012 contract negotiations?

 

GMs don't have to be clairvoyant. But they do have to do a lot more research than fans are even remotely able to do. They look at medical reports. They look at scouting reports. They look at character-related reports. And they look at numbers. We just look at numbers. Numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

And they still make mistakes. Heaven knows the Twins have a mixed track record on signing free agents. But I don't think they are alone. It is in many ways more difficult to project free agents than players within your system because the teams that have them restrict access to all the information. Nobody shows their cards in these games. You can, in effect, count cards by piecing other information together. But you still have a large element of risk, based on incomplete information.

[cmathewson]

I see you still believe that GM's should factor in the 2013 results into their offers to 2012 FA's.

 

I like how I went back and looked at 2 complete seasons worth of data showing that your premise doesn't hold water and you still come back to it.

 

I don't see this as an indictment of my claim. This past year was one of the worst years I've ever seen for free agent pitchers. The year before and the next year look closer to average, or a little above. Adding a year to your sample does nothing to improve your results if they are vastly different years.

[cmathewson]

Meh I think it's good to out the front office apologists whenever possible. The more people who see the type of dissonance that comes with defending a 70m payroll the better.

 

The FO gets away with spending 35% of revenue because the handful of misinformed fans claiming that spending more doesn't equate to wins. I mean today someone claimed spending makes the team worse. How does that thought process even exist in 2013 with all the data available to us?

 

Show your work.

[Oxtung]

Isn't that exactly what a GM's job is? To try to figure out who's going to produce and help the team in the future?

 

Contracts are not offered based on past results. Contracts are offered based on anticipated future results. At the end of the year, you know whether the GM did his/her job well or not.

 

I am dumbfounded by these last few posts. Do people actually think that Terry Ryan should know how Correia pitched in 2013 before he signed in 2012? Because that is the argument you're making. Not that he should make a judgement based on probabilities but that he should actually know the results.

 

If you truly believe that then doesn't the Happ extension look just terrible!

[Oxtung]

I don't see this as an indictment of my claim. This past year was one of the worst years I've ever seen for free agent pitchers. The year before and the next year look closer to average, or a little above. Adding a year to your sample does nothing to improve your results if they are vastly different years.

 

OK...I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion. You say X....I show you historically X doesn't apply. You say history doesn't matter and continue on to argument Y.

 

It's clear you believe all that matters is your own personal eye test and gut feelings. That's certainly your right but then there is no reason to continue this back and forth.

[cmathewson]

Many of us don't feel the need to concede it because we haven't suggested otherwise. I've refused to name specific names - just said we should've allocated X amount of dollars to pitching - whomever that may be. I think most people would stand by that, we all know there are a lot of variables in getting a deal done. But we had the resources (afterall, our own FO said it's all about "dollars and years") to make something better than what we did.

 

OK, well I personally don't think that's a good strategy. I'm for spending whatever it takes to win, but I don't think spending indiscriminately or to some arbitrary budget number is the best strategy. If you sign expensive guys, you expect to give them every opportunity to earn their money. What if they don't? If he doesn't perform, your only option is to DFA him. That is a bitter pill for most people to swallow. It's the kind of thing that gets GMs fired. so hey keep him as long as they can hoping he'll turn it around. Meanwhile, the team finds itself behind every time he starts.

 

To give you just one of the dozens of examples I can think of off the top of my head, on our own team, we have suffered through Nick Blakcburn largely because we locked him up to a large contract. If Smith hadn't signed him to that deal, he would have likely been in the minors two years earlier. Instead, he was giving up runs and keeping other guys from getting opportunities who might have done better (internally or externally sourced).

 

That's essentially what you do when you sign a bad free agent. So the risk aversion is real. But it's not all about spending the owners' money. It's about the risk of losing because you signed the wrong guy. Ryan said several times in the offseason he wasn't fond of many of the free agents. His prescience has panned out with 20% of the season done.

[cmathewson]

It's clear you believe all that matters is your own personal eye test and gut feelings. That's certainly your right but then there is no reason to continue this back and forth.

 

Tisk tisk. I certainly didn't say that. To the contrary, I said I'm no scout, so I am painfully aware of my own limitations in evaluating how free agent pitchers will do. It's easy enough to look at the numbers and ZIPS and James and others (based solely on the numbers), and say that Correia was not likely to be even close to average. That's easy. Contrary to what some people think I do look at those numbers. But any monkey with a keyboard can cite that stuff. Around here, lots of people seem to think doing simple Internet research qualifies them to make these kinds of predictions, which are the hardest GM's make in a year.

 

But I don't have access to the other data that both Ryan and Antony referred to when they defended the Correia signing. I trust they did their due diligence. We'll see at the end of the year how they did.

 

Anyway, I agree we are at an impasse. Have a nice day.

[Kwak]

"...defending the Correia signing...". The defense they used was: "We can't give our money away." Also, " We have [more] offers 'out there'." The FO as much as stated that Correia wasn't their first choice (remember Baker?), but that he was the first guy to commit.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

I'm willing to bet that by the end of the season Correia is below average as determined by ERA+. Interested in a sig line wager?

 

That said, how he produces in 2013 has nothing to do with whether he was a good signing in 2012; unless you think GM's should be clairvoyant and factor 2013 results into 2012 contract negotiations?

 

How bout this. I'll continue to root for the Team I've been a fan of my whole life, and you can root for a player on the team (I can only assume) you are a fan of to fail.

[Oxtung]

How bout this. I'll continue to root for the Team I've been a fan of my whole life, and you can root for a player on the team (I can only assume) you are a fan of to fail.

 

What's the point of this post? The only thing I can think of is that you're attempting to fling a backhanded insult at me. Do you feel better? It certainly doesn't make your position any more logically tenable.

[IdahoPilgrim]

I am dumbfounded by these last few posts. Do people actually think that Terry Ryan should know how Correia pitched in 2013 before he signed in 2012? Because that is the argument you're making. Not that he should make a judgement based on probabilities but that he should actually know the results.

 

If you truly believe that then doesn't the Happ extension look just terrible!

 

Actually, that's not the argument I am making. I'm saying the job of the GM is to anticipate and predict future performance. Obviously, some times those predictions will be more accurate than others.

 

In making that assessment, statistical analysis of previous years will only be one piece, and sometimes a piece of lesser importance, in a much larger picture - it is one piece of data among several, and in the end it does require intuition and guesswork. That's what GMs are paid to do.

[ThePuck]

How bout this. I'll continue to root for the Team I've been a fan of my whole life, and you can root for a player on the team (I can only assume) you are a fan of to fail.

 

I originally wrote a response that, as I've seen this site operate, would have gotten me a warning and my response removed anyway. Instead, I'll just report it instead of responding how one should to it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We've received mutiple reports of this thread.

 

Everybody ends the petty bickering or I lock the thread. If anyone throws even the most trivial insult aimed at another user after this post, they will be banned. Consider this a blanket warning for the entire thread.

 

If you can't play nice, don't post in this thread.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

We've received mutiple reports of this thread.

 

Everybody ends the petty bickering or I lock the thread. If anyone throws even the most trivial insult aimed at another user after this post, they will be banned. Consider this a blanket warning for the entire thread.

 

If you can't play nice, don't post in this thread.

 

your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

[Brock Beauchamp]

your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

 

Fair enough.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

I wonder how many 96 loss teams went out and made a huge splash in free agency the next year?

 

Why would you allocate tons of resources to a particular area when you have so many unknowns and weaknesses on your team, and you don't know for sure when you'll get help from the minors? A lot can change over 2-3 years. Your organizational needs can change. Banking on a free agent pitcher to be the same guy in year 3-5 as when he signed, and to just assume you've got that part of the roster accounted for flies in the face of recent history.

 

The real future of the Twins is in A ball right now. I love Arcia, am intrigued by Hicks, but the real difference makers ala Mauer and Morneau circa 2006 are Buxton and Sano, and their timetables are an unknown at this point. Put another way, other than Mauer who can you automatically assume is in the every day lineup in say 2015? We hope Arcia and Hicks, but we don't know. All others are a crapshoot. So what happens if 5 of Berrios, Gibson, Mays, Meyer, Diamond, 2013 #1 draft pick turn out to be the best rotation on the AL, but one of your prospects you counted on who is in A ball right now flamed out? Would have been nice to have that extra $20 million to go get a great position player or two to fill out your roster.

 

I guess you could say you can never have enough starting pitching, but to make a big move to address only one position of need when you could potentially have several is short sighted.

[launchingthrees]

Show your work.

 

There's no point. Somebody put in work w/r to your assumptions about the available free agents last offseason and you couldn't grasp it. It's pretty obvious your position is defend the FO even when the data refutes your stated position. That's fine. It's how a lot of diehards think. It's just not worth more discussion beyond this.

 

Thelev,

You're doing the lords work. On the other hand this is why the games are still beatable.

[old nurse]

When there was a claim that there were 15 pitchers available to the Twins that were above average starters ERA+ was used as the designated statistic. ERA+ is computed using all of the pitchers. Regular starter, relievers, pitchers who pitched hurt and sucked, as well as the replacement level pitchers. If you use xfip as your measuring stick a different picture emerges. The years of 2009 through 2012 were used. A minimum of 300 innings pitched over that time leaves Grienke, Sanchez, Jackson, Haren, Baker, Myers, Dempster, Liriano, Lohse and Marcum as with the only starters available with a sub 4.2 xfip. When you reach 4.2 Fangraphs decrees that you are a below average pitcher. After being released or traded I do not think that Lohse, Liriano or Baker would be coming back. Realistically that left Haren, Myers, Dempster and Marcum as the reasonable potential Twins that were above average pitchers.

[Guest USAFChief]

I wonder how many 96 loss teams went out and made a huge splash in free agency the next year?

 

Why would you allocate tons of resources to a particular area when you have so many unknowns and weaknesses on your team' date=' and you don't know for sure when you'll get help from the minors? A lot can change over 2-3 years. Your organizational needs can change. Banking on a free agent pitcher to be the same guy in year 3-5 as when he signed, and to just assume you've got that part of the roster accounted for flies in the face of recent history.

 

The real future of the Twins is in A ball right now. I love Arcia, am intrigued by Hicks, but the real difference makers ala Mauer and Morneau circa 2006 are Buxton and Sano, and their timetables are an unknown at this point. Put another way, other than Mauer who can you automatically assume is in the every day lineup in say 2015? We hope Arcia and Hicks, but we don't know. All others are a crapshoot. So what happens if 5 of Berrios, Gibson, Mays, Meyer, Diamond, 2013 #1 draft pick turn out to be the best rotation on the AL, but one of your prospects you counted on who is in A ball right now flamed out? Would have been nice to have that extra $20 million to go get a great position player or two to fill out your roster.

 

I guess you could say you can never have enough starting pitching, but to make a big move to address only one position of need when you could potentially have several is short sighted.[/quote']

 

1) Why would we care how many "96 loss teams" went out and spent money? We're discussing the Twins, what they should do, and what resources they have, or had, to address them.

 

2) "So what happens if 5 of Berrious, Gibson, Mays, Meyer, Diamond...turn out to be the best rotation in the AL, but one of your prospects you counted on...flamed out?" What happens if all of them don't? What happens if they all do, AND the guy you signed is productive as well...couldn't you then use one of those assets in trade, to fill the need?

 

3. "...to address only one position of need when you could have several is shortsighted." It's better to address none, than to address some?

[jokin]

I wonder how many 96 loss teams went out and made a huge splash in free agency the next year?

 

 

 

 

I guess you could say you can never have enough starting pitching' date=' but to make a big move to address only one position of need when you could potentially have several is short sighted.[/quote']

 

The answer would be: "FOUR"

Boston, Cleveland, Toronto and the Cubs.

 

The Twins were in position the last 2 offseasons to address their gaping holes and have found fit to priotize partial and incremental hole-filling as a secondary priority to continuing the payroll cutting at the major league level and building up the minor league prospect pool.

 

To answer your second point above, I totally disagree with your supposition that addressing only one position of need is shortsighted. In fact, I would argue that it is actually farsighted to address positions of need every year, if the right players are available via trade or free agency---and--- if you have surplus payroll and surplus depth with which to do so. The Twins signed Willingham for 3 years and extended Doumit. That was one pillar that filled part of the hole they created by moving 4 players from the 2011 team. The Twins were certainly in position after 2011 to add 2-3 starters- a quality arm for extended years and 1 or 2 rent/flip-a-pitchers like Maholm or Jackson. Having done so, they still could have come in under the 2011 payroll. In the process, they would be well on their way to competitiveness that much sooner. Had they repeated the process again after 2012, and again after this season, an argument can be made they would be a better team than they are right now, today- and would certainly be in position next year- what with the more solid core coupled with the beginning of the minor league infusion of impact players to be a very strong contender in 2014.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

1) Why would we care how many "96 loss teams" went out and spent money? We're discussing the Twins, what they should do, and what resources they have, or had, to address them.

 

2) "So what happens if 5 of Berrious, Gibson, Mays, Meyer, Diamond...turn out to be the best rotation in the AL, but one of your prospects you counted on...flamed out?" What happens if all of them don't? What happens if they all do, AND the guy you signed is productive as well...couldn't you then use one of those assets in trade, to fill the need?

 

3. "...to address only one position of need when you could have several is shortsighted." It's better to address none, than to address some?

1. I'm looking strictly at the future probabilities of success based on past performance.

2. The Twins are not good, have tons of holes, and we will not know what positions will be covered with home grown talent a few years from now. Sure you could try to move players in a position of organizational strength on order to fill holes. It doesn't make sense to me to overspend now when you don't know if its necessary 3 years from now.

3. The alternative is not to do nothing, the alternative is to wait until your in house options play themselves out to see where your money is better spent. If the Twins want to get into the business of building through overpaying for free agents they will soon find themselves saddled with a lot of lousy contracts, instead of a nice base of cost controlled players with free agents mixed in here or there. It might not look bad on the next year or two but its not sustainable unless you are willing to have one if those monster contracts fail like the Yankees can do. The Twins can't do that.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

The answer would be: "FOUR"

Boston, Cleveland, Toronto and the Cubs.

 

The Twins were in position the last 2 offseasons to address their gaping holes and have found fit to priotize partial and incremental hole-filling as a secondary priority to continuing the payroll cutting at the major league level and building up the minor league prospect pool.

 

To answer your second point above, I totally disagree with your supposition that addressing only one position of need is shortsighted. In fact, I would argue that it is actually farsighted to address positions of need every year, if the right players are available via trade or free agency---and--- if you have surplus payroll and surplus depth with which to do so. The Twins signed Willingham for 3 years and extended Doumit. That was one pillar that filled part of the hole they created by moving 4 players from the 2011 team. The Twins were certainly in position after 2011 to add 2-3 starters- a quality arm for extended years and 1 or 2 rent/flip-a-pitchers like Maholm or Jackson. Having done so, they still could have come in under the 2011 payroll. In the process, they would be well on their way to competitiveness that much sooner. Had they repeated the process again after 2012, and again after this season, an argument can be made they would be a better team than they are right now, today- and would certainly be in position next year- what with the more solid core coupled with the beginning of the minor league infusion of impact players to be a very strong contender in 2014.

What surplus payroll? I don't care what their budget is, it's not a good idea to load up on bad deals in order to put a marginally better product on the field. Every player has a valuation. Just because in the next few years there's not a lot of dead weight on the books doesn't mean you overspend! Do you guys want to win a World Series, or do want to go 81-81??

 

You can't possibly spend your way out of this hole they are in talent-wise. They are in an excellent position to make several moves IF they have a nucleus of players that can stick around for a while, learn to play as a team, and win. This is how the Twins have assembled World Series teams in the past, not by getting piecemeal guys here and there, that's not an efficient way to assemble a club. Eventually you will have a team full of guys who are all getting paid more than they are worth. You're going to get bitten in the ass this way.

 

Doumit and Willingham are not players you build around, I'm sorry. Neither one can play a lick of defense and they're both soon to be on the downside of their careers.

 

Like it or not guys, the Twins are operating as a business with a budget. They aren't going to sign guys to big deals when the pieces aren't in place to make a playoff run. Again, I don't care what they spend this year. No matter what they do they aren't going to win a World Series. And although some of you are making a compelling argument that adding pieces here and there will make them better (it will), I don't think it's a sustainable approach nor will it lead to a championship quality team. I think you better load up on guys with talent that are cheaper. If the Twins set their max budget at $115 million, As a fan I want that money well spent, not paying $5 for $3 players, which is what will happen if you want to go through free agency to fill holes when you have holes all over the diamond.

 

We aren't going to outspend the LA or east coast teams, so we need to spend wisely. The biggest problem in beating the Yankees win the playoffs over the years wasn't Ron Gardenhire, it was the fact that the Yankees were a better team.

[TheLeviathan]

3. The alternative is not to do nothing' date=' the alternative is to wait until your in house options play themselves out to see where your money is better spent.[/quote']

 

Please explain how this very dressed up response is substantively different from "nothing" when it comes to spending money/adding talent.