Is Glen Perkins the Twins greatest trade chip?

[TheLeviathan]

Tell me about it, I must have missed it.

 

Um...won division....lost in first round....lose 100 games....rebuild. Seems like a big change from that 2010 season three years ago.

[cmb0252]

Tell me about it, I must have missed it.

 

The Twins haven't been bad for 15+ years with no real game plan. Comparing the Twins to the Royals/Pirates is not only stupid but irresponsible. We went to the playoffs just as much as any team in baseball the last decade. Even when the Twins had the smallest payroll in baseball they still put up good seasons.

 

Lose of a ton of free agents with out being able to fill their spots with home grown players has been what killed us. Not signing big name free agents.

[kab21]

With respect--and we've had this argument--I think the better idea is to shop in that range when you have the money and the need.

 

Shopping in that range almost has to be part of "putting the pieces into place." If you wait till you have everything in place until you put everything in place, you end up the KC Royals, always looking at all the talent in A ball as a way to excuse the losses by the big league club.

 

Spending that money now means that you won't have much to spend when the pieces are falling into place. that should be obvious.

 

Your Royals argument is worthless. They have been the most incompetent org in baseball for 2 decades (along with the Pirates). But it's cool if you want to dismiss rebuilding the right way because of 2 inept orgs.

[howieramone1406390264]

The Twins haven't been bad for 15+ years with no real game plan. Comparing the Twins to the Royals/Pirates is not only stupid but irresponsible. We went to the playoffs just as much as any team in baseball the last decade. Even when the Twins had the smallest payroll in baseball they still put up good seasons.

 

Lose of a ton of free agents with out being able to fill their spots with home grown players has been what killed us. Not signing big name free agents.

 

Are you talking to me? Start a few pages back and it should all make sense to you. You're preaching to the choir.

[JB_Iowa]

Spending that money now means that you won't have much to spend when the pieces are falling into place. that should be obvious.

 

Not necessarily. We are years away from paying some of these prospects -- even if they buy out arbitration years. So there is a PRESENT gap where they could and should be spending some $$$ to put a better product on the field. That "better product" might also help them generate additional revenues.

 

In an ideal world, they would be "harboring" some of the money they are not spending now for use down the road. BUT that is contrary to everything that they have ever said about their business model so until they make it clear that will happen, I have to believe that they have blithely forsaken their beloved "50% rule" and are simply planning to pocket additional profits this year.

[cmb0252]

Are you talking to me? Start a few pages back and it should all make sense to you. You're preaching to the choir.

 

I was just talking in general to people comparing the Twins to the Royals/Pirates. Didn't mean to quote your post. My bad!

[drjim]

Look at the pirates and royals, they prove, using your logic, that using the draft does not work.....I'd guess that it is a combination of the two approaches that work best, which is what most of us have been saying. Like adding Jack Morris, for example.....or CC Sabathia. I mean, the Yankees have won an awful lot, and they did it by using both channels......that's what I'm asking for, not to ignore big time free agents completely. Imagine signing a legit DH earlier this century, rather than using the DHs they used....like when McPhail was GM.....

 

Free agency has changed massively from 20 years ago to what we have seen in even the past decade. There are complaints to be made and different approaches that have been argued about, but you are really comparing two completely different scenarios.

 

And now the Twins should be outbidding the Yankees as well.

[drjim]

This is the giant steaming fallacy we Twins fans have been fed for decades. It is not either/or!!!!! You can do both!

 

Teams like St. Louis, Atlanta, Washington, Texas, Cincy prove this. With all due respect this is the canned argument that people hide behind and it's total nonsense.

 

BOTH.....not either/or.

 

Texas is in another league financially, but I think the other teams mentioned by you don't prove your point. None of those teams have ever signed a free agent pitcher to 5 or more years. And I would guess Atlanta and Washington might be regretting their BJUpton and Werth signings right about now.

 

The other aspect to consider is that the Twins have only been in this company since 2010, with payroll close to maxed out in 2010 and 11. Before 2010 the best Twins comparison/model would be the Rays. Who was the last free agent of consequence that franchise signed?

[Guest USAFChief]

Not necessarily. We are years away from paying some of these prospects -- even if they buy out arbitration years. So there is a PRESENT gap where they could and should be spending some $$$ to put a better product on the field. That "better product" might also help them generate additional revenues.

 

In an ideal world, they would be "harboring" some of the money they are not spending now for use down the road. BUT that is contrary to everything that they have ever said about their business model so until they make it clear that will happen, I have to believe that they have blithely forsaken their beloved "50% rule" and are simply planning to pocket additional profits this year.

 

 

Exactly.

 

All these same tired arguments about "building the right way," "they don't have the money," and/or "they won't have the money when they need the money" have been hashed, rehashed, and completely debunked on other threads.

 

Some would apparently rather suffer through multiple seasons of hopelessness than admit the truth.

 

That's fine, I guess, but it doesn't mean what they have to say is well thought out.

[drjim]

He was 29 when he signed the contract. Even if he is a #3 SP when he is 33 which would be in his 3rd year, he still would be better than anything we have right now. You can't manage your team in fear of the unknown. Prospects are cheap and contracts eventually expire. IF you are smart with your moves, you won't get bit too often.

 

I know that the Twins could fit it in to their salary structure, but $18mil/yr (at minimum) for a #3 seems a little steep. He has never pitched 200 innings in a season and generally has mid 3.00 eras with 7-8 k/9.

 

If the Tigers weren't world series contenders/favorites I'm not sure this would be looked at as a good signing for them. I wouldn't want the Twins to outbid that.

[drjim]

Exactly.

 

All these same tired arguments about "building the right way," "they don't have the money," and/or "they won't have the money when they need the money" have been hashed, rehashed, and completely debunked on other threads.

 

Some would apparently rather suffer through multiple seasons of hopelessness than admit the truth.

 

That's fine, I guess, but it doesn't mean what they have to say is well thought out.

 

I personally don't expect them to use "saved" money and I also expect the payroll to be lower next season than it is this season. Still doesn't mean that signing Sanchez this past offseason would put them in the playoffs this year.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Ideally, with the current state if the Twins roster they should be looking to move anyone they can if they get a good deal. However, with the Twins' penchant for overvaluing 60-70 inning per year "proven closers" I don't think there's a good chance that they will get the kind of value they are looking for. Which really isn't a bad thing, Perkins is well liked by the fans and media, its probably not worth it if you add in the PR/perception element to dump him for the type of prospect you can reasonably be expected to receive in return.

[jokin]

I would encourage all of you to check out Buster Olney's Baseball Tonight podcast from Thursday. He had Terry Ryan on and it was great. He really doesn't sugar code ****. He is straight forward and very respected in the game. Look at the two biggest spenders in the past two years: LA dodgers and LA Angels. How is that working out? Free agency is a last resort. Plus you lose draft picks. I for one would rather have Eades for six cheap years than Sanchez for 2 good followed by 3 bad at 15-20 mil.

 

So you would rather be proud of losing and being mediocre (and feeling really good inside about your GM's frugality for extra style points) than taking the chance on winning and having proven ace-level talent (but feeling bad about having a lighter wallet for taking risk with available dollars).

 

OK, got it.

[TheLeviathan]

Texas is in another league financially, but I think the other teams mentioned by you don't prove your point. None of those teams have ever signed a free agent pitcher to 5 or more years. And I would guess Atlanta and Washington might be regretting their BJUpton and Werth signings right about now.

 

The other aspect to consider is that the Twins have only been in this company since 2010, with payroll close to maxed out in 2010 and 11. Before 2010 the best Twins comparison/model would be the Rays. Who was the last free agent of consequence that franchise signed?

 

Have the Rays achieved something we should be aspiring to? Texas is not all that much larger than us as far as markets go. It's an especially absurd point considering you are comparing it to the actual payroll of the Twins - a team no one should deny is cheap with how much they spend their money. You're just stacking the deck completely for your argument rather than taking on the issue as it is.

 

Why is it that the people who take on these arguments never see the forest for the trees? The point is that your farm, no matter how good it is, can't provide all the answers. You have to use all methods at your disposal to make your team better, like the examples I used. FA is not the end all, be all. But it's one of only three tools available to make your team better. NONE OF THEM ARE SUFFICIENT ALONE. THE BEST TEAMS USE THEM ALL.

 

I put that in big letters in hope you won't intentionally miss the point again. My hopes are slim.

[jokin]

Respectfully....we just went through a major change in plans in the last 3-5 years, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I'm not sure there was one....

[jokin]

I know that the Twins could fit it in to their salary structure, but $18mil/yr (at minimum) for a #3 seems a little steep. He has never pitched 200 innings in a season and generally has mid 3.00 eras with 7-8 k/9.

 

If the Tigers weren't world series contenders/favorites I'm not sure this would be looked at as a good signing for them. I wouldn't want the Twins to outbid that.

 

The Tigers are the Central Division's Yankees. Look to the solutions to that dilemma from teams like the Orioles and Rays. They went one direction in response, the Jays and Red Sox went another. The Twins are doing neither.

[cmb0252]

So you would rather be proud of losing and being mediocre (and feeling really good inside about your GM's frugality for extra style points) than taking the chance on winning and having proven ace-level talent (but feeling bad about having a lighter wallet for taking risk with available dollars).

 

OK, got it.

 

No, you wait for your CHEAP minor league talent to make it to the bigs before you start over paying for FA. The last two years we have gotten almost nothing from our minors so there was no point in spending. This year we have gotten Hicks, Arcia, and hopefully soon Gibson. We have Meyers/May/Sano/Rosario behind them which should help, by latest, mid next year. Once that talent is up you start to spend on neeDs.

 

As LA has shown us, just because you spend money that doesn't mean you will get in. Spend wisely now and stay the course. Help is on its way.

[drjim]

Have the Rays achieved something we should be aspiring to? Texas is not all that much larger than us as far as markets go. It's an especially absurd point considering you are comparing it to the actual payroll of the Twins - a team no one should deny is cheap with how much they spend their money. You're just stacking the deck completely for your argument rather than taking on the issue as it is.

 

The Rays have made the World Series and have been competitive for the past five years. That would be nice. But that is beside the point of the Twins right now, that was a reference to the way the Twins operated pre-Target Field.

 

Texas has a TV deal about 5x the size of the Twins and services a bigger market. They are only a slight drop off of the NY teams, LA teams and Boston. Bigger than the Seattle, St. Louis, Atlanta tier that the Twins are in.

 

For your last sentence, I am merely responding to the examples that you cited.

 

Why is it that the people who take on these arguments never see the forest for the trees? The point is that your farm, no matter how good it is, can't provide all the answers. You have to use all methods at your disposal to make your team better, like the examples I used. FA is not the end all, be all. But it's one of only three tools available to make your team better. NONE OF THEM ARE SUFFICIENT ALONE. THE BEST TEAMS USE THEM ALL.

 

I put that in big letters in hope you won't intentionally miss the point again. My hopes are slim.

 

The Twins signed 5 free agents for 2012 and 2 this past offseason as well as assorted minor league contracts that have eventually made the squad. They do sign free agents and utilize free agency in pretty much the same way as the teams you mentioned.

 

Other teams that are in a similar situation as the Twins of coming off terrible seasons and in similar market sizes (Colorado, Seattle, etc) that you left out also did pretty much the exact same thing as the Twins.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

I personally don't expect them to use "saved" money and I also expect the payroll to be lower next season than it is this season. Still doesn't mean that signing Sanchez this past offseason would put them in the playoffs this year.

I will add what is this "saved" money anyway? Who thought that Target Field allows the Twins to have substantially more payroll than the majority of teams in the league? I think we are more towards the middle of the pack now rather than at the very bottom with the metrodome.

Also, just because you can theoretically afford a Sanchez doesn't mean it's prudent or even possible. Why on earth would a top level pitcher come to Minnesota to play behind this terrible defense and have his numbers go in the toilet? And why would the Twins spend $130M ( or whatever the magic mumber is that people think the Twins should be obliged to spend) to go .500? They have possibly the worst starting pitching in the league, and no amount of money is going to fix that. So you're going to pay Sanchez an extra $30 million dollars over the next 2 years for that roster spot, so that its filled in 3 years when the Twins might be good? That's lunacy. I can't believe people are actually arguing and getting upset the Twins aren't doing this. What business would seek to significantly raise the cost of its product knowing the quality of the product (i.e. W-L record) won't be substantially better?

 

The Twins were competitive in the 2000's because they had lots of good (cost controlled) starting pitching and played really good defense. Now they have neither of those things. Target Field does not allow the Twins to start throwing away millions of dollars, it allows them to be competitive with most (not all) of teams in the league.

[jokin]

No, you wait for your CHEAP minor league talent to make it to the bigs before you start over paying for FA. The last two years we have gotten almost nothing from our minors so there was no point in spending. This year we have gotten Hicks, Arcia, and hopefully soon Gibson. We have Meyers/May/Sano/Rosario behind them which should help, by latest, mid next year. Once that talent is up you start to spend on neeDs.

 

As LA has shown us, just because you spend money that doesn't mean you will get in. Spend wisely now and stay the course. Help is on its way.

 

No point in spending? Why did the organization sign anybody then? Why retain the high dollar guys who won't be around when the next wave hits, anyway? We are spending needless money by your way of thinking. And our "neeDs" are vast and wide and can't be solved in one offseason.

 

LA hasn't shown us anything. Spending money SOMETIMES means you won't get in. Not spending money means you NEVER will get in.

 

Spending wisely now, by your very own definition, is not happening now, staying the course has gotten us in the mess were in.

[jokin]

The Rays have made the World Series and have been competitive for the past five years. That would be nice. But that is beside the point of the Twins right now, that was a reference to the way the Twins operated pre-Target Field.

 

Texas has a TV deal about 5x the size of the Twins and services a bigger market. They are only a slight drop off of the NY teams, LA teams and Boston. Bigger than the Seattle, St. Louis, Atlanta tier that the Twins are in.

 

For your last sentence, I am merely responding to the examples that you cited.

 

 

 

The Twins signed 5 free agents for 2012 and 2 this past offseason as well as assorted minor league contracts that have eventually made the squad. They do sign free agents and utilize free agency in pretty much the same way as the teams you mentioned.

 

Other teams that are in a similar situation as the Twins of coming off terrible seasons and in similar market sizes (Colorado, Seattle, etc) that you left out also did pretty much the exact same thing as the Twins.

 

Texas is also just coming out of the brink of bankruptcy and smelling like roses because they have a legitimate plan with success on the field as the bottom line. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay doesn't work for you as a model to emulte, either, since we no longer fit the model in Target Field. Heads are spinning on your side of this argument.

 

On FA, you guys want to have it both ways but you can't. Your side has been arguing vociferously that FA is not the answer, and yet you supply FA signed as your answer.

 

If their payroll was capped at the self-imposed 50% rule, you might have an argument, but you can't, so you don't. How does Colorado disprove the point?

[Guest USAFChief]

I will add what is this "saved" money anyway? Who thought that Target Field allows the Twins to have substantially more payroll than the majority of teams in the league? I think we are more towards the middle of the pack now rather than at the very bottom with the metrodome.

 

 

.

 

The Twins are currently 10th in a 15 team American League in payroll, and just a couple million from being 12th. They're not even middle of the pack.

 

As to "saved" money, they're not living up to the payroll promises they themselves made. They will almost undoubtedly reduce payroll even farther in coming seasons, despite an extra $25M in free TV money annually starting next season.

 

But again, all these arguments have been made, and disproven, elsewhere. Multiple times.

 

There is simply no logical argument to be made about not being able to spend more money, now and/or in the next half decade, at least.

 

Don't like Greinke? Fine. Don't like Sanchez? Fine. I might disagree, but that's just a matter of opinion.

 

But please don't tell me the Twins can't afford one, or both, now or for the life of their contracts. Because that's simply not true.

[drjim]

Texas is also just coming out of the brink of bankruptcy and smelling like roses because they have a legitimate plan with success on the field as the bottom line.

 

On FA, you guys want to have it both ways but you can't. Your side has been arguing vociferously that FA is not the answer, and yet you supply FA signed as your answer.

 

If their payroll was capped at the self-imposed 50% rule, you might have an argument, but you can't, so you don't. How does Colorado disprove the point?

 

Many baseball experts are saying the Twins right now are similar to the Rangers of 2007 or 2008. And I can promise the Rangers didn't give 5 year contracts to pitchers at that point.

 

FA is not the answer, but no one is against it to fill gaps or provide stopgaps while waiting for prospects to emerge. I like to think this argument is about signing a big ticket free agent this past offseason. That would not have been the answer.

[TheLeviathan]

For your last sentence, I am merely responding to the examples that you cited.

 

And I am merely suggesting teams that don't ignore one of the three options for making their team better. If your point is that there aren't 20 teams in the same approximate market size as us, I confess...you win. But I'd simply point out that it had nothing to do with my argument.

 

The Twins signed 5 free agents for 2012 and 2 this past offseason as well as assorted minor league contracts that have eventually made the squad. They do sign free agents and utilize free agency in pretty much the same way as the teams you mentioned.

 

That's just ridiculous. Does this really need to be proven wrong? Better yet, shall I look at the history of the Colorado Rockies and Seattle Mariners for FA signings?

 

For the love of all that's holy, the problem is not just that last offseason was a failure - it's that the team has NEVER utilized that option. Ryan is public about his loathe for using FA at anything above a Josh Willingham level. And that, mind you, was the largest deal we have ever signed. His deal is 1/9 the size of the kind you keep beating to death. Can we at least get to 4/9 or 5/9? That'd make me flippin' estatic!!!!!

 

The problem is that this franchise has stopped utilizing FA effectively for the last 20+ years. Please quit narrowing the point so you can try and have some ground to stand on, my point is broad and basically undeniable: There are three methods of adding talent: draft, trade, and sign - smart teams don't exclude any of them on principle. The Twins....do.

[cmb0252]

No point in spending? Why did the organization sign anybody then? Why retain the high dollar guys who won't be around when the next wave hits, anyway? We are spending needless money by your way of thinking. And our "neeDs" are vast and wide and can't be solved in one offseason.

 

LA hasn't shown us anything. Spending money SOMETIMES means you won't get in. Not spending money means you NEVER will get in.

 

Spending wisely now, by your very own definition, is not happening now, staying the course has gotten us in the mess were in.

 

Thanks for pointing out the accidental capitalization of D in needs...it really strengthens your argument.

 

Not spending money means you NEVER will get in? Have you heard of the Rays and or Braves? How about the Cardinals who have only once gone over the 100 million mark? The Brewers, Reds, and Athletics have put together pretty good teams in past years by not spending stupid amounts of money.

 

The Twins have proven when they hit the 112 million mark that they will spend money if they think they can win. They aren't going to just give it away like a drunk girl on prom night. All teams go through down times and right now it is the Twins turn. People got spoiled because of the last decade.

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins have proven when they hit the 112 million mark that they will spend money if they think they can win. They aren't going to just give it away like a drunk girl on prom night. All teams go through down times and right now it is the Twins turn. People got spoiled because of the last decade.

 

They have only proven they won't hesitate to resign players. They have yet to show a willingness to add free agents. It may seem like a small distinction, but it's not. It's the difference between ADDING talent and maintaining your current levels.

[cmb0252]

They have only proven they won't hesitate to resign players. They have yet to show a willingness to add free agents. It may seem like a small distinction, but it's not. It's the difference between ADDING talent and maintaining your current levels.

 

Very few teams sign big time free agents. How many teams that operate around 100 million sign multiple big time free agents? Most trade for them at some point and then resign them later.

[TheLeviathan]

Very few teams sign big time free agents. How many teams that operate around 100 million sign multiple big time free agents? Most trade for them at some point and then resign them later.

 

Well.....they haven't shown that either. I'd happily count that too if they did it.

[Guest USAFChief]

Very few teams sign big time free agents. How many teams that operate around 100 million sign multiple big time free agents? Most trade for them at some point and then resign them later.

 

What is your argument here...the Twins (and similar teams) will never sign a "big time free agent?"

 

First, that's not correct, and

 

second, it's not even what you told us earlier in this same thread, where you told us to wait until our CHEAP minor league talent made it to the bigs before "overspending" on FAs.

 

It would be easier to discuss this if folks could stick to one argument.

[Vespasian]

I personally don't expect them to use "saved" money and I also expect the payroll to be lower next season than it is this season. Still doesn't mean that signing Sanchez this past offseason would put them in the playoffs this year.

 

Signing Sanchez would not have put them in the playoffs - but it would have made it more compelling to show up at the ballpark every fifth day, and shouldn't that count? If not, why hang on to Mauer? (Yes, I realize he would be very difficult to unload given his salary and no-trade clause, but you get my point.) Sanchez may not be the same pitcher in three years, but odds are he will still be better than at least one of the prospects we are now penciling in, and unless I am forgetting about a bunch of guys who are going to need to get paid the next few years there should still he plenty of money available to sign the Mike Pelfreys of the world.

 

If the Twins were underspending now so that they could overspend in a few years I would be completely on board with that. Unfortunately, there is no historical evidence to suggest they will do that, so I have to assume they will just pocket the money.

 

Others have said it, and so will I. The best teams use all available methods to improve.