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

[Brock Beauchamp]

Do you all remember when we were told the Twins couldn't compete because they couldn't sign FA's because they were committed to spending 52% of revenues on player salaries and revenues were significantly capped from the Dome? You all bought into that argument as justification for public subsidies for Target Field and yet when the Twins don't actually spend close to what they said they would you all toe the corporate line. I'm with the author on this one, even if the deals turn crummy in retrospect, I hate knowing I was had by all the Pohlad apologists.

 

Regardless, go Twins.

 

Who is toeing the corporate line?

[Mike Sixel]

NO, they should have signed Greinke because he's really good, and they have the money, and they have the need. Replace Pelfrty with Greinke this year......how many wins is that do you think? 5? 10? I'd guess in the 5-7 range. If you thought they were a .500 team this year, add 7 more wins and you are in the WC hunt.

 

If you thought there were a 75 win team, well, what about next year or the year after, when they are a .500 or better team, and Greinke is still on the roster and good.

 

BTW, who is the best FA pitcher next year? Yuck. This isn't a 1 year deal, this is a 4-6 good to great years deal.

 

and yes, I know you are as frustrated as me that they continue to dumpster dive for FAs.

[DutchFarmer]

Who is toeing the corporate line?

 

You are, at least implicitly (or at least I'm inferring it as I admittedly cannot tell you what you are implying). They don't want to spend money because a player might not end up being worth the money in the end. If the public paying for the new stadium was about being able to take the chances on more expensive players then take the chances on more expensive players.

[Brock Beauchamp]

NO, they should have signed Greinke because he's really good, and they have the money, and they have the need. Replace Pelfrty with Greinke this year......how many wins is that do you think? 5? 10? I'd guess in the 5-7 range. If you thought they were a .500 team this year, add 7 more wins and you are in the WC hunt.

 

If you thought there were a 75 win team, well, what about next year or the year after, when they are a .500 or better team, and Greinke is still on the roster and good.

 

BTW, who is the best FA pitcher next year? Yuck. This isn't a 1 year deal, this is a 4-6 good to great years deal.

 

and yes, I know you are as frustrated as me that they continue to dumpster dive for FAs.

 

You're assuming that Greinke will still be effective in 2016. That is far from a given. In fact, odds are that he won't be anything special at that point. Maybe effective but not a star player. History hasn't been kind to top-shelf pitchers as they pass 30 years of age.

 

I would have preferred to see the Twins go for Dempster and Marcum (or something of that ilk) over a shorter term than going all-out on a Greinke or Sanchez (I was once in the Sanchez camp but good god... not at that price). Pitchers are far too fickle to dedicate that kind of money if you want to win in the long-term, especially if your team is several shades of awful right now (which means that by the time it's good, that top-shelf pitcher is probably on the decline).

[Brock Beauchamp]

You are, at least implicitly (or at least I'm inferring it as I admittedly cannot tell you what you are implying). They don't want to spend money because a player might not end up being worth the money in the end. If the public paying for the new stadium was about being able to take the chances on more expensive players then take the chances on more expensive players.

 

You're not reading my posts very closely, are you?

 

I'm not saying the Twins shouldn't spend the money, I'm saying they shouldn't spend the money on one player.

[nicksaviking]

and the Twins could be on their way to throwing away 40% of their payroll for 1-2 seasons.

 

Or they could increase the payroll and that percentage would not be so high.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2013 a lost season? We're 13-14. With a guy like Greinke in place of Pelfrey, maybe we're 15-12. Bloody hell, its May 6. Magic number is like 100.

 

Look at the Royals roster. Then look at the Tigers roster.

 

Now look at the Twins roster. It would take two Zack Greinkes and a Elvis Andrus to make this team competitive in the American League. Sure, they might limp into competitiveness in July but unless something miraculous happens and they get lucky with nearly every player on the roster, this team's ceiling is mediocrity.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Or they could increase the payroll and that percentage would not be so high.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a payroll much higher than $120m, which is the baseline I'm using.

[DutchFarmer]

You're not reading my posts very closely, are you?

 

I'm not saying the Twins shouldn't spend the money, I'm saying they shouldn't spend the money on one player.

 

Aren't I? You don't want to go in on Sanchez at that price? $15m/yr? 52% of revenues should put us at about $106m (if I recall last years revenues correctly). We are in the low 80's. We could absorb that easy, even if over 5 yrs. If they were honest about maintaining that percentage they could please both of us in that they could sign multiple players and have that one​ player be included.

[bird]

Unless I'm mistaken, their "entire considerable signing allotment" was $2.9M...about the cost of Jamie Carroll. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's evidence that they "spend lots," nor that "this organization isn't frugal." I also don't consider the Twins currently having higher rated farm systems than Chicago or Detroit as evidence they "aren't frugal." I doubt the Twins are spending more money on their minor leagues than either of those teams...certainly not an amount anywhere near the difference in major league payrolls.

 

Chief, it wouldn't matter WHAT the allotment is, or whether they outspend the Tigers on farm systems. You will consider them to be "frugal" as long as two things are true: 1. their payroll number is lower than you believe you're entitled to have it be, and 2. you don't have full access to their P&L, which is something you also believe you're entitled to.

[DutchFarmer]

Chief, it wouldn't matter WHAT the allotment is, or whether they outspend the Tigers on farm systems. You will consider them to be "frugal" as long as two things are true: 1. their payroll number is lower than you believe you're entitled to have it be, and 2. you don't have full access to their P&L, which is something you also believe you're entitled to.

 

Perhaps we should be entitled to those things. #publiclysubsidizedstadium

[Willihammer]

Look at the Royals roster. Then look at the Tigers roster.

 

Now look at the Twins roster. It would take two Zack Greinkes and a Elvis Andrus to make this team competitive in the American League. Sure, they might limp into competitiveness in July but unless something miraculous happens and they get lucky with nearly every player on the roster, this team's ceiling is mediocrity.

I'm trying to think of some recourse you could provide us TDers who aren't writing off 2013 already, if the Twins do finish within, say, 5 games of a playoff spot.

 

Maybe a free offseason GM handdbook?

[ashbury]

If the public paying for the new stadium was about being able to take the chances on more expensive players...

 

The public subsidy on the stadium was said to allow the team to compete year in and year out. The team hasn't kept their end of the bargain; but that's not the same as what you said.

[DutchFarmer]

The public subsidy on the stadium was said to allow the team to compete year in and year out. The team hasn't kept their end of the bargain; but that's not the same as what you said.

 

Good point!

 

However, merely semantics. The pitch was that there weren't enough suites (either in absolute # or they weren't selling them. Which one I don't recall) and thus they didn't have the money to "compete year in and year out." Which, I think we can all safely assume meant that they didn't have the revenue to to sign the players to compete. Takes some forward thinking to get there but in reality we are talking about the same thing, no?

[Guest USAFChief]

Chief, it wouldn't matter WHAT the allotment is, or whether they outspend the Tigers on farm systems. You will consider them to be "frugal" as long as two things are true: 1. their payroll number is lower than you believe you're entitled to have it be, and 2. you don't have full access to their P&L, which is something you also believe you're entitled to.

It does matter. I'm rebutting YOUR claims that they aren't frugal, which you claim is proven by their international signings and their minor league system. Both of those claims are dubious at best. The money they can spend on international signings is capped by the CBA, and not much different than any other team's allotment. In any case, it's a pittance...less than $3M last year. I'm going to need to see that they're spending an amount on their minor league system that makes up for the difference in major league payroll before I accept that as proof they're not "frugal." As stated, I doubt they spend significantly different amounts on their minor league system as other teams do. As for 1), it's lower than they've told us it would be (52%, yada yada yada), not "what I'm entitled to," and 2) if you have that data, please share. Until so, I'll go with what data's available, and what they have said, repeatedly. And using that data, they're "frugal" at best, interested primarily in squeezing as much cash out of the team as possible at worst.

[bird]

Perhaps we should be entitled to those things. #publiclysubsidizedstadium

 

Yes, perhaps you SHOULD be. But you're not. It's absolutely fair game to criticise the organization for not spending what you believe they "should". What annoys me is how far the pendulum swings, from "not spending enough" to "those evil, cheap SOB's".

[DutchFarmer]

Yes, perhaps you SHOULD be. But you're not. It's absolutely fair game to criticise the organization for not spending what you believe they "should". What annoys me is how far the pendulum swings, from "not spending enough" to "those evil, cheap SOB's".

 

And what annoys me is that pendulum does not seem to swing at all for some folks.

[bird]

They didn't promise you that they'd spend 52% yada yada each and every year on MLB payroll. They didn't say that, with the new stadium, they'd be able to be "competitive" each and every year. You're entitled to your own definition of "frugal", and I will grant you that you make a strong case. I wish they'd spend more too.

[ashbury]

However, merely semantics.

 

I really don't think so. I would have liked an additional signing or two, particularly Saunders. But the risk/reward on a long-term signing like Greinke just wasn't there, IMO. There will come an off-season soon where such a signing will make sense, and past history says there will be a free-agent available to fill that need. We can both agree the Twins left money in their pockets they could have used to improve things for 2013, even if we disagree on how the money should have been spent.

[Mike Sixel]

Anyone want to bet on the over/under next year compared to this year? How about 2015 or 2016, as they replace veterans with even more freeish players? Not to mention the free $25MM they get in revenue, which I'd think could 100% be spent on players, and they'd still be making the same money if they didn't have it......which they could not have been counting on when they asked for a new stadium at taxpayers' expense.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

There's an old adage that may apply here, something about putting all your eggs in one basket. Greinke is good, but having him doesn't guarantee anything. This team is not going to win the division with or without Greinke. They likely won't compete next year either. Your best prospects are still in A ball. Why the hell would you tie up so many resources in one player, when most likely you won't compete until the 3rd or 4th year of the deal? He's not Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez for Pete's sake.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Who is toeing the corporate line?

Obviously you are for not demanding the Twins sign every available top free agent and/or demand they spend $100M a year "because they have it".

 

People who think this way deserve to be Cubs fans. I prefer management capable of putting together winning seasons instead if throwing their idiot fan base a few high priced bones every once in a while.

[DutchFarmer]

There's an old adage that may apply here' date=' something about putting all your eggs in one basket. Greinke is good, but having him doesn't guarantee anything. This team is not going to win the division with or without Greinke. They likely won't compete next year either. Your best prospects are still in A ball. Why the hell would you tie up so many resources in one player, when most likely you won't compete until the 3rd or 4th year of the deal? He's not Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez for Pete's sake.[/quote']

 

The alternative seems to be to pocket most of the eggs instead of putting them in multiple baskets though. That's the beef here.

[Mike Sixel]

There's an old adage that may apply here' date=' something about putting all your eggs in one basket. Greinke is good, but having him doesn't guarantee anything. This team is not going to win the division with or without Greinke. They likely won't compete next year either. Your best prospects are still in A ball. Why the hell would you tie up so many resources in one player, when most likely you won't compete until the 3rd or 4th year of the deal? He's not Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez for Pete's sake.[/quote']

 

 

Call me when they do sign that one player to put them over the top.....I won't be sitting by my phone. As stated above, they didn't distribute the risk either, they just pocketed the money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Aren't I? You don't want to go in on Sanchez at that price? $15m/yr? 52% of revenues should put us at about $106m (if I recall last years revenues correctly). We are in the low 80's. We could absorb that easy, even if over 5 yrs. If they were honest about maintaining that percentage they could please both of us in that they could sign multiple players and have that one​ player be included.

 

No, I don't want Sanchez at five years, $88m. I don't think that's a good contract. Anibal is a good, not great, pitcher and I think he could turn into a $15m albatross in the later years of that deal.

[DutchFarmer]

People who think this way deserve to be Cubs fans. I prefer management capable of putting together winning seasons instead if throwing their idiot fan base a few high priced bones every once in a while.

 

...and you deserve to be a marlins fan with your boom or bust attitude.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm trying to think of some recourse you could provide us TDers who aren't writing off 2013 already, if the Twins do finish within, say, 5 games of a playoff spot.

 

Maybe a free offseason GM handdbook?

 

Hah! Look, I was one of the loudest advocates for signing decent guys at more money than Correia/Pelfrey in hopes that it might be enough to push the Twins toward mediocrity and maybe with a bit of luck, the playoffs.

 

But I can't advocate taking a 96 loss team and adding Greinke. It's such a waste and hurts the team when it actually has a legitimate shot at winning (not hopes and dreams).

[Brock Beauchamp]

The alternative seems to be to pocket most of the eggs instead of putting them in multiple baskets though. That's the beef here.

 

And you'll be hard-pressed to find many Twins fans around here who like that "alternative".

[Mike Sixel]

My proposal:

 

Feel free to spend under $81MM if you want (adjusted for baseball inflation, and adding $25MM more next year).....but when you do, pay more for the stadium.

 

So, let's just say inflation was worth $7MM or so.....so take $88MM, and subract out the start of the year payroll, and divide by two....then multiply by 80% and pay that much in taxes. Then take the payroll after the trade deadline, subtract that from $88MM, divide by two and multiply by 80%, and pay that much in taxes.

 

If the Twins want to make 20% more by cutting payroll from the dome days, adjusted for baseball inflation and increases in national revenue, fine.....but the other 80% of that excess profits should go to paying down the bonds on the stadium early.*

 

*edited for speeling and to add this:

And for the NHL, NBA, and NFL teams, if you spend less than 95% of the cap, pay 80% of that in excess profits' tax.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To clarify on my Sanchez point, I don't think it's a terrible deal. I'm not against the Twins pursuing a Sanchez-type player, but with a few caveats:

 

- Try to offer him $17m for four years instead of $15m for five

 

- It wasn't right for 2013. Acquiring a Sanchez-type is good for an 85 win team that needs that one guy to win

 

- None of this matters because I fear that Ryan is averse to doing even that