Pitchers we didn't get - updated

[drjim]

So the Twins are going to be able to outbid the Dodgers? Interesting theory.

[drjim]

Well I didn't paste the entire quote, but he does say Money is the #1 thing and that's it's disingenuous for guys to say they took more money for "their families" since they get so much anyway.

 

Anyway, I'm not necessarily advocating the Twins try to sign a Grienke (Though it would be nice, say once every quarter century). However, I disagree with those who say it's not worth spending the money when the team is bad. I want the team to be better and spending money is one way to help that. I'm not advocating mortgaging the future, just using the resources they have to put a good team on the field. They did not do that this last offseason, and it really ticks me off as a paying fan to hear them spout the nonsense that Free Agents wouldn't come here. That might have

happened in one case...

 

So you don't necessarily advocate spending on the actual free agents that existed last offseason but instead spend on hypothetical players that don't actually exist. I don't see what could possibly go wrong with that plan.

[Guest USAFChief]

Makes sense, but you said yourself neither Greinke nor Sanchez was money well spent.

I don't remember saying that. What I've done is acknowledge the possibility--probability even--that some of the years of any long term contract are going to be wasted money. That's probably true of Greinke, Sanchez, Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, insert name here.

 

It's also possible that NONE of the years will be wasted money.

 

What is indeed fact, irrefutable, is that the current plan has the Twins wasting a lot of money right now. No "possible," "probable," or "maybes" about it. There is at least $25M sitting there unused this year, more like $40M by my calculations. That money is wasted. Doing zero to help this team, now or in the future, since the Twins have said, and proven, that savings one year do not mean more money next year.

 

We also know there will be $25M more in national TV money starting next year. We also know this "emerging core" that everyone loves to point to will not be getting paid for many years, so there is payroll room for the next half decade at least, probably more. We know the Twins have a current need for starting pitching, and quite probably will have that need for the foreseeable future.

 

It made all the sense in the world to try to sign a Greinke, or a Sanchez--or both--this past winter.

 

I have my doubts about the "they wouldn't sign here anyway" meme. But even if it's true, I also doubt there's any way the Twins could possibly know that, since I doubt they made either a serious offer.

[gunnarthor]

I think there are a couple different issues getting thrown at each other. I do think that

 

1) The Twins are no longer in the Metrodome and they should be able to spend a lot more than they are spending on payroll. Even this year.

 

2) Free agents are a horrible long term investment that can really hurt a team trying to rebuild, which we are. A Dempster like deal would have been fine and doable, a Sanchez deal is far too risky on a pitcher of Sanchez's ability i.e.- he's not a true ace. His past three seasons he's been a solid but not spectacular pitcher. Not a 16m/yr guy.

 

3) I am willing to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt for now b/c 1) he's never had the big payroll opportunities before and 2) he has successfully built up contending teams on low budgets. I feel that this current wave of Twins prospects making the majors this year and over the next few years should be able to compete and that Ryan had better help that group with FA signings. But those signings should be done to supplement those teams and should be the last thing done.

 

4) Lastly, I'm not a big fan of spending a ton of money to go from a 70 win team and top 5 pick to a 75 win team and a top 15 pick.

[cmathewson]

Many of those talented pitchers will sign extensions before the year is out. Adam Wainright already has this season. It is far from a forgone conclusion that the 2013 FA crop will be stronger than the 2012 FA.

 

Sure. You can choose to spend your money on the crappy pitchers you know are available vs. saving your money for the decent pitchers who probably will be available. There's no certainty in any of this. It's all playing odds.

[big dog]

given that there is a salary cap for amatuers, it is 100% not that they are saving money for the draft or international signings.

 

But there is no cap on the number of international players that can be signed, and I don't think there's a cap on bonuses. They gave Sano a huge amount of money.

[cmathewson]

I don't remember saying that.

 

Well, you must have changed your mind. I seem to recall a conversation about how overrated and overpaid Greinke is.

 

What is indeed fact, irrefutable, is that the current plan has the Twins wasting a lot of money right now. No "possible," "probable," or "maybes" about it. There is at least $25M sitting there unused this year, more like $40M by my calculations. That money is wasted. Doing zero to help this team, now or in the future, since the Twins have said, and proven, that savings one year do not mean more money next year.

 

So we should spend all the money we have no matter what? And if the high-buck free agents don't sign with us (for whatever reason), we should go out and get free agents and keep all our in-house options on the farm? What if we think our in-house options are better than the free agents? Perhaps they're about the same now, but we think they will be better for years to come, unless we stunt their development by keeping them in AAA past their prime? If so, it seems like signing free agents just to spend the money we have actually could hurt the team's chances to win.

 

I'm just trying to come up with a reason why an intelligent person would choose to not spend money when told he had to use it or lose it. Seems at least plausible it's because he thinks he is helping his team win by refusing to sign a bunch of veterans rather than develop his young players.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

I don't remember saying that. What I've done is acknowledge the possibility--probability even--that some of the years of any long term contract are going to be wasted money. That's probably true of Greinke, Sanchez, Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, insert name here.

 

It's also possible that NONE of the years will be wasted money.

 

What is indeed fact, irrefutable, is that the current plan has the Twins wasting a lot of money right now. No "possible," "probable," or "maybes" about it. There is at least $25M sitting there unused this year, more like $40M by my calculations. That money is wasted. Doing zero to help this team, now or in the future, since the Twins have said, and proven, that savings one year do not mean more money next year.

 

We also know there will be $25M more in national TV money starting next year. We also know this "emerging core" that everyone loves to point to will not be getting paid for many years, so there is payroll room for the next half decade at least, probably more. We know the Twins have a current need for starting pitching, and quite probably will have that need for the foreseeable future.

 

It made all the sense in the world to try to sign a Greinke, or a Sanchez--or both--this past winter.

 

I have my doubts about the "they wouldn't sign here anyway" meme. But even if it's true, I also doubt there's any way the Twins could possibly know that, since I doubt they made either a serious offer.

 

I seriously doubt the twins didn't make serious offer for Grienke and Sanchez.

 

Aren't unverifiable statements fun?

[big dog]

Maybe the Twins could take all this money they save on Sanchez and pay a posting fee and a salary to sign a shortstop from the Japanese league...oh wait, never mind. That's probably a bad idea. I hope they don't try it.

[drjim]

I think there are a couple different issues getting thrown at each other. I do think that

 

1) The Twins are no longer in the Metrodome and they should be able to spend a lot more than they are spending on payroll. Even this year.

 

2) Free agents are a horrible long term investment that can really hurt a team trying to rebuild, which we are. A Dempster like deal would have been fine and doable, a Sanchez deal is far too risky on a pitcher of Sanchez's ability i.e.- he's not a true ace. His past three seasons he's been a solid but not spectacular pitcher. Not a 16m/yr guy.

 

3) I am willing to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt for now b/c 1) he's never had the big payroll opportunities before and 2) he has successfully built up contending teams on low budgets. I feel that this current wave of Twins prospects making the majors this year and over the next few years should be able to compete and that Ryan had better help that group with FA signings. But those signings should be done to supplement those teams and should be the last thing done.

 

 

4) Lastly, I'm not a big fan of spending a ton of money to go from a 70 win team and top 5 pick to a 75 win team and a top 15 pick.

 

I can get behind this.

 

A couple of points I also would personally add:

1. The free agent pitching class was weak.

2. The Twins cannot outbid the Dodgers.

3. Terry Ryan is conservative and frugal, not cheap. He will spend money but not for these prices for this talent.

4. The real spending will come from in-house extensions.

5. Payroll will be low for a couple more years as Ryan turns over the roster and works in young talent.

[Oxtung]

....Sanchez deal is far too risky on a pitcher of Sanchez's ability i.e.- he's not a true ace. His past three seasons he's been a solid but not spectacular pitcher. Not a 16m/yr guy.

 

And he's not getting paid like an ace. With the influx of revenue salaries are going to keep climbing and climbing quickly. $16m/year is going to look about right or possible even cheap 3 years from now for Sanchez's services.

 

4) Lastly, I'm not a big fan of spending a ton of money to go from a 70 win team and top 5 pick to a 75 win team and a top 15 pick.

 

This is the first time I've seen anyone say that even though I think many people believe it and frankly I applaud your honesty. This is the one argument I don't really have a counter point for.

[Oxtung]

Sure. You can choose to spend your money on the crappy pitchers you know are available vs. saving your money for the decent pitchers who probably will be available. There's no certainty in any of this. It's all playing odds.

 

You mean like how you can afford spend your money now on a FA who is highly likely to give you some good to elite pitching for several years or you can hold on to your money hoping that almost all your prospects develop into above average players 3-5 years from now allowing you to go out to pursue a second tier free agent because you can no long afford to pursue the elite talent level FA?

[ashbury]

You mean like how you can afford spend your money now on a FA who is highly likely to give you some good to elite pitching for several years or you can hold on to your money hoping that almost all your prospects develop into above average players 3-5 years from now allowing you to go out to pursue a second tier free agent because you can no long afford to pursue the elite talent level FA?

 

When Anibal was on the market I looked at how the best 28-year-olds in 2007 looked 5 years later, and "highly likely" looks highly like an overestimate to me. As for 3-5 years, I don't know if everyone is advocating that - my view is "hold your horses for now, look again in 1-2 years".

[Oxtung]

When Anibal was on the market I looked at how the best 28-year-olds in 2007 looked 5 years later, and "highly likely" looks highly like an overestimate to me. As for 3-5 years, I don't know if everyone is advocating that - my view is "hold your horses for now, look again in 1-2 years".

 

Did I say 5 years of good to elite pitching? I said several. I'll be more specific. I think you're likely to get 3 years. Another year of below average and a year of injury.

 

I would have to look into this but I would suspect that by pushing off your elite FA signing 2 years you can no longer make that signing and pay for all of your elite prospects which will be in Arb and entering FA.

[whydidnt]

Umm, what the heck? There were more than 2 FA pitcher last off-season. That's what this thread started as. I thought the Twins should have been in on Sanchez, and several of these guys. Some of them haven't worked out so far, but it's not like the Twins didn't have the money to sign more than what they did.

[whydidnt]

But there is no cap on the number of international players that can be signed, and I don't think there's a cap on bonuses. They gave Sano a huge amount of money.

There isn't a cap on the number of players signed, but there is now a cap of the amount that can be spent. Each team now has a limited pool of money available. Teams with poor records are allocated a larger limit. The strategy of saving on MLB salaries to spend on international signings no longer exists.

[whydidnt]

I can get behind this.

 

A couple of points I also would personally add:

1. The free agent pitching class was weak.

2. The Twins cannot outbid the Dodgers.

3. Terry Ryan is conservative and frugal, not cheap. He will spend money but not for these prices for this talent.

4. The real spending will come from in-house extensions.

5. Payroll will be low for a couple more years as Ryan turns over the roster and works in young talent.

 

1. Disagree - there wasn't a huge number of elite pitchers, but there were A LOT of guys that could have helped the Twins.

2. Why not? Every team has a some limit. They certainly couldn't outbid the Dodgers for every player, but for one guy there's no reasonable reason they couldn't, especially this year.

3. You say conservative and frugal, I say cheap...what's the difference?

4. I agree, but I think those big extensions are a few years away.

5. Probably, but I think this is where some of us disagree. I don't see any reason it HAS to be this way. You can turn over the roster and still bring in some decent guys that cost a few bucks in the process -without hurting your long term process.

 

I have a hard time putting my hands around why any fan wouldn't want the Twins to try to field the best team the can every year. It's not like the money they aren't spending this year is going to be invested in the team later, it's simply going in to the owners pockets. Why should we be happy about that?

[TheLeviathan]

Quite frankly, this whole dialogue here is better wrapped up in the other thread. That's where the threads of "reason" people like drjim are using are being exposed for just how ass-backwards and inconsistent they are.

 

Notice - you don't have to advocate "We MUST sign Grienke" to do this. That's not the point people here keep deflecting to. It's about using available resources to make your team better and the counter-arguments that are being thrown at that idea. But the premises of much of those arguments defending the Twins are just absurd. They're complete nonsense when you shine a little light on them. If anyone disagrees, by all means answer the same question I gave dr. jim that exposed his arguments: (Good luck staying consistent with your memes about bad players not coming here, not tying up future payroll, not giving up assets, etc.)

 

If not now (or last offseason) than what player for what amount of money?

[diehardtwinsfan]

But there is no cap on the number of international players that can be signed, and I don't think there's a cap on bonuses. They gave Sano a huge amount of money.

 

This isn't true anymore. Last year was the last uncapped year, and personally, I would have spent every dime that they didn't spend this year to grab anyone that looks like they have an above average ceiling or better... That would have been smart.

[drjim]

1. Disagree - there wasn't a huge number of elite pitchers, but there were A LOT of guys that could have helped the Twins.

2. Why not? Every team has a some limit. They certainly couldn't outbid the Dodgers for every player, but for one guy there's no reasonable reason they couldn't, especially this year.

3. You say conservative and frugal, I say cheap...what's the difference?

4. I agree, but I think those big extensions are a few years away.

5. Probably, but I think this is where some of us disagree. I don't see any reason it HAS to be this way. You can turn over the roster and still bring in some decent guys that cost a few bucks in the process -without hurting your long term process.

 

I have a hard time putting my hands around why any fan wouldn't want the Twins to try to field the best team the can every year. It's not like the money they aren't spending this year is going to be invested in the team later, it's simply going in to the owners pockets. Why should we be happy about that?

 

The Twins signed two guys in that bunch. I would say after Greinke, Sanchez and Dempster it was pretty much a crapshoot. That is what I gather from reviewing the stats of the other guys. At the end of the year some in that group will have done better, some worse, and most about the same.

 

I totally want the Twins to field the best team, just like every fan wants their team to field the best team. When the demand of starting pitching outweighs the supply you don't always end up with the best options.

[TheLeviathan]

When the demand of starting pitching outweighs the supply you don't always end up with the best options.

 

So now we only need to wait for the market to be flooded with good starting pitching that the demand can't meet?

 

Oofta.

[snepp]

Can I get an updated list of excu....reasons why adding a quality free agent once in a blue moon is so taboo? It's difficult to keep track of, new ones keep popping up, while the old ones continue to morph whenever it's convenient.

[TheLeviathan]

Can I get an updated list of excu....reasons why adding a quality free agent once in a blue moon is so taboo? It's difficult to keep track of, new ones keep popping up, while the old ones continue to morph whenever it's convenient.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure drjim has 6-7 more up his sleeve before he starts over at the first ones in hopes we all forgot about them agian.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, we're a "Chewbacca Defense of the Twins FA Spending away" from a series of TD head explosions.

[gunnarthor]

Can I get an updated list of excu....reasons why adding a quality free agent once in a blue moon is so taboo? It's difficult to keep track of, new ones keep popping up, while the old ones continue to morph whenever it's convenient.

 

Seriously, who did you want? Ryan has made some good sensible free agent additions that helped the team now without risking future payroll - Willingham, Doumit, Correia.

 

Should the Twins have spent 80+ million and 5 years on a consistent 2.5-3.5 WAR pitcher like Sanchez? 200 on Grienke? Dempster's deal looked doable as did any of those other 1 year deals that were out there.

 

But if you're going to demand that the Twins should spend big in FA, show us how it should've been done.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

Just to throw some more gasoline on the fire here...

 

The good Liriano showed up in Pittsburgh today. Liriano has 8 K's through 5 innings and has given up 3 hits and no runs so far against the Mets.

 

Yes it's against the mets... but MLB tonight (today) went through all his pitches today and it actually looks like his mechanics aren't terrible.

 

I hope Liriano finally gets it together, so much lost potential.

[old nurse]

Just to throw some more gasoline on the fire here...

 

The good Liriano showed up in Pittsburgh today. Liriano has 8 K's through 5 innings and has given up 3 hits and no runs so far against the Mets.

 

Yes it's against the mets... but MLB tonight (today) went through all his pitches today and it actually looks like his mechanics aren't terrible.

 

I hope Liriano finally gets it together, so much lost potential.

Looked up the box score. Might still be Pepcid for everyone when Liriano pitches. Saw the Hawkins pitched for the Mets. Another pitcher of great potential never met. 16 years and 42 million later shows you do not need to meet your potential to be a success.

[cmathewson]

I for one have consistently said I'm all for signing free agents. But it makes no sense to throw your money at guys just because you have the money. If there aren't free agents who are likely to be significantly better than your in-house options, I see no reason to sign them. And I'm willing to reduce the margin on "significantly" to 5% whatever relevant measure you give me (OPS+, ERA+, etc.). But if we're within that margin, I would prefer to give the in-house option the chance. There are two reasons for this:

 

1. The in-house option typically has higher upside, being younger and less experienced.

2. Bad contracts can act like an albatross around your neck. E.g., Nick Blackurn.

 

I don't think my opinion is that different from the Twins'. Notice neither reason was about saving money. It's about risks and rewards where the reward is a better chance to win.

[TheLeviathan]

1. The in-house option typically has higher upside, being younger and less experienced.

2. Bad contracts can act like an albatross around your neck. E.g., Nick Blackurn.

 

1. Only if they are talented. If your in-house option is Blackburn or Pedro Hernandez than why not? I think you are belaboring a point that no one disagrees with. No one wants to block young talent. What we want is a better upgrade than Pelfrey or Correia.

 

2. Only if you have or anticipate a tight budget. Otherwise it's really irrelevant.

[Guest USAFChief]

Well, you must have changed your mind. I seem to recall a conversation about how overrated and overpaid Greinke is.

Can you point me to that conversation?