Article: Twins Trade Justin Morneau To Pirates

[Mr. Brooks]

He is NOT a prospect, why do people keep calling him one?

He's well over the cutoff, BOTH in terms of AB's and service time, for ROY consideration, which is the parameter for being a "prospect".

[nicksaviking]

Looking at Pittsburgh's 40-man roster, I think it is fair to say that had the Twins not taken a player from that list, Pressley was very likely the top option to be DFA'd to make room for Morneau.

[Kwak]

The true nature of "the Morneau trade has been determined"--reduce salary, maintain a "tough negotiator" image, and last obtain someone who might be useful. Absolutely, Ryan asked for better talent--but that's part of a negotiation--ask a lot, and then reduce to an acceptable level to make a deal happen. I didn't read any Ryan comments about what a great trade he made or how glad the Twins are because (so-and-so) is now a Minnesota Twin. Thus, it is very easy to conclude that salary reduction was preeminent.

 

Is Presley supposed to be the CF of the future? Hell NO! Buxton is supposed to be the CF of the future. Presley is simply in the mix to be 2014's CF and then be trade bait (`ala` Revere and Span) for another cog in the machine.

 

The Twins will become a very lean payroll team--even with Mauer! If Joe wants to go--well some crocodile tears would be shed but he would be gladly traded.

 

 

Mauer merchandise, you say? After 10 years there aren't many left who don't own a Mauer jersey who would buy one. However, there is a "new wave" coming and no one owns a Sano or a Buxton Twins jersey (yet)--so Joe won't be a marketing essential after next year.

[golfboy1]

How you view the Pirates is irrelevant to the facts of the trade. You can call it whatever you want but in the end the Mets had to include cash in order to receive the prospects they wanted. The Twins did not do this. I'm not sure how much more clear that can be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're both implying that the Pirates GM immediately went to the owner and said, "Can you cover this $2 million?" That is a big supposition that has no evidence to support it. It is just as likely that TR was unwilling to pay any of the salary and the Pirates GM said, "In order for this trade to happen we need to take on the salary, will you cover it?" In fact I think that is the far more likely scenario given Ryan's trade history (and trades in general).

 

We're clearly spinning our wheels here so I'll just recap my point of view and move on.

 

1) The Pirates accepted money for prospects just this week.

2) The Pirates owner had to dip into his own pocket to finance this trade.

3) TR has only 1 time included money in a trade.

4) TR didn't spend ~$20 million this off season that was available to him. Saving money is a priority for this FO.

 

The Pirates used their money to improve the team. The Twins did not, instead choosing to save $2 million. This trade could still work out as we don't know the PTBNL. If the Twins get a prospect with some upside it won't be a waste of a resource but I will still always wonder what if...

 

It's possible that the Twins could have gotten a better prospect if they kicked in the money but I don't think it was likely.

 

Morneau has very limited value. Even if they got him for zero dollars I can't imagine Pittsburgh giving up a decent/valuable prospect for him. Would you give up a good prospect for one month of Morneau? He's simply not that good anymore.

 

After Pittsburgh acquired Bryd I'm surprised they still had any interest in Morneau. I don't believe anyone else was interested in Morneau so they weren't exactly in a bidding war to acquire him.

 

I don't know why the Mets added 250K in their trade but it is such a small amount I can't imagine it made much difference prospect wise. It could be that Huntington had the deal done & he thought he could get the Mets to cough up a little extra money or maybe it simply speeded up the deal by a week or so.

 

Here's a scenario.. If a team was doing a trade with the Twins & it came down to James Beresdorf & the Twins eating the money or someone like Jorge Polanco or Zack Jones & the other team eating the money...what would you prefer? I think most of us would rather the Twins keep the better prospect & eat the salary. My thinking is the Pirates had the same thought process. They were not going to give up a better prospect for a one month rental who is OPS .741.

 

Presley is a minor upgrade over Thomas with a slight bit more upside. They are just placeholders until Hicks gets it together or Buxton arrives. Welker is a power arm for the pen who might help. It never hurts to accumulate as many power arms as possible since only so many ever make it.

 

Heck, a week ago many posters were clamoring for Ryan to get rid of Morneau as a salary dump(along with Willingham) just to open up AB for other players. Now he actually got 2 players who can contribute, albeit minimally, it seems he still screwed the pooch.

[jay]

Morneau has very limited value. Even if they got him for zero dollars I can't imagine Pittsburgh giving up a decent/valuable prospect for him. Would you give up a good prospect for one month of Morneau? He's simply not that good anymore.

 

IMO, this is the biggest flaw in the 'Twins should have covered salary' argument. None of the other points, sources, facts, inferences, ideas, etc matter when you accept that Morneau simply didn't have much value and the Pirates wouldn't have given up much more even if he was free of cost. If Morneau was free, what's the very most the Pirates would give up? Best case, a #20-range prospect?

 

In theory, yes, the Twins could get a better prospect in exchange for cash. I don't know why anyone would deny that. However, in this instance of reality, it probably wasn't an option or just didn't matter enough to make a difference. Whether that $2M was budgeted for already or not, it's hard to picture it making sense for the Twins to pay $2M to go from whatever this PTBNL turns out to be to a still-fringe prospect.

[LaBombo]

It's possible that the Twins could have gotten a better prospect if they kicked in the money but I don't think it was likely.

 

The facts suggest otherwise, but that doesn't really matter. You admit it's possible, and regardless of the odds of it happening, it sure looks like the Twins never even considered it as an option. That's what matters to me, not the outcome of the trade.

 

Just a guess, but that's probably also the case with other disappointed fans who've been negatively generalized about in this thread.

[LaBombo]

IMO, this is the biggest flaw in the 'Twins should have covered salary' argument. None of the other points, sources, facts, inferences, ideas, etc matter when you accept that Morneau simply didn't have much value and the Pirates wouldn't have given up much more even if he was free of cost. If Morneau was free, what's the very most the Pirates would give up? Best case, a #20-range prospect?

 

In theory, yes, the Twins could get a better prospect in exchange for cash. I don't know why anyone would deny that. However, in this instance of reality, it probably wasn't an option or just didn't matter enough to make a difference. Whether that $2M was budgeted for already or not, it's hard to picture it making sense for the Twins to pay $2M to go from whatever this PTBNL turns out to be to a still-fringe prospect.

Jay, I completely agree with you that if we accept your unsupported opinion of Morneau, then the facts don't matter.

 

But I don't, so they do matter. And they do suggest a better prospect was a possibility, since it was reported the Twins were turning down teams because of money weeks ago, when Morneau's value was likely higher.

 

Anyway, you recognize that it's at least possible, which means that the only real question is this: if the Twins pocketed an extra two million dollars instead of receiving a better prospect, even just a marginally better one as you speculate, how are you better off as a Twins fan?

[PseudoSABR]

IMO, this is the biggest flaw in the 'Twins should have covered salary' argument. None of the other points, sources, facts, inferences, ideas, etc matter when you accept that Morneau simply didn't have much value and the Pirates wouldn't have given up much more even if he was free of cost. If Morneau was free, what's the very most the Pirates would give up? Best case, a #20-range prospect?

Right, but even then, I just don't understand why the Pirates would give up anything more of value, when they had latitude on cost. Sure, it makes perfect sense for the Twins to pay the contract if they get a better player, but I doubt that was ever an actual option because of how senseless it was for the Pirates to offer that option.

[golfboy1]

The facts suggest otherwise, but that doesn't really matter. You admit it's possible, and regardless of the odds of it happening, it sure looks like the Twins never even considered it as an option. That's what matters to me, not the outcome of the trade.

 

Just a guess, but that's probably also the case with other disappointed fans who've been negatively generalized about in this thread.

 

 

It's certainly possible...I'm not privy to any of the trade negotiations that actually went on.

 

Here is a quote from LaVelle Neal's column Aug. 29th regarding the Twins trying to trade Morneau & Willingham.

 

 

"3. TRADES: I don't expect the Twins to make any trades before the deadline - at least involving Justin Morneau or Josh Willingham. I'm getting indications that the interest in Morneau isn't that significant. They would have to eat salary if they move either Morneau or Willingham (which they are willing to do), but will that be enough to get a decent prospect in return?"

 

 

 

According to him, they were willing to eat salary to move Morneau but the interest wasn't significant...at least he doubted they would get a decent prospect in return.

 

This doesn't indicate the Twins "never even" considered sending money to cover salary. We don't know what was all discussed.

 

No one claimed Morneau off waivers so I have a hard time believing he had much interest/value. I don't see a team giving up a solid prospect...regardless if the Twins paid his salary...for someone who wasn't worth putting in a waiver claim on.

 

There are reasons to be disappointed with the Twins/Ryan but I can't find much fault with this trade. Frankly, getting Welker was about the most I thought he could get for Morneau.

[LaBombo]

According to him, they were willing to eat salary to move Morneau but the interest wasn't significant...at least he doubted they would get a decent prospect in return.

 

This doesn't indicate the Twins "never even" considered sending money to cover salary. We don't know what was all discussed.

 

No one claimed Morneau off waivers so I have a hard time believing he had much interest/value. I don't see a team giving up a solid prospect...regardless if the Twins paid his salary...for someone who wasn't worth putting in a waiver claim on.

There were multiple reports from outside the Twins front office earlier in the season of deals involving prospects the Twins liked but that they wouldn't make because of money.

 

As for LEN's report, well, why on earth would the Twins front office admit to its fan base that it valued an extra two million in profit more than a prospect upgrade in a potential trade? In the long run that would seem to me to be a bigger PR hit than the actual loss of 4 weeks of Morneau.

 

And if Ryan finally did get religion as Morneau's value approached zero at the deadline and put money on the table for a realistically available prospect as LEN claims, well, good for him. Day late, dollar short, etc.

 

The fact that Morneau went unclaimed doesn't tell me much about his value, since almost no veteran players ever change hands in mid-season as a straightup waiver claim. If it were that simple, why didn't Pittsburgh just claim him and not give up players?

 

On the other hand, the reports that Ryan had already refused even one offer over money tells me quite a bit about where his priority was.

[jay]

Anyway, you recognize that it's at least possible, which means that the only real question is this: if the Twins pocketed an extra two million dollars instead of receiving a better prospect, even just a marginally better one as you speculate, how are you better off as a Twins fan?

 

I do recognize it as possible in theory to get a better prospect by paying money. As I stated in an earlier post and mentioned by a few others, I don't think it was an option in this case. There's simply no reason for Neal Huntington to even consider giving up a better prospect if his owner agreed to cover the salary. I don't personally buy the reasoning whatsoever that he only would have asked for that after the Twins said 'no' to covering any salary. Even if it were an option, I could very well be 'better off' if the Twins use that $2M (or even of a portion of it) to acquire talent elsewhere. That's a steep price to pay for a marginal difference. How would they use it? I don't exactly know, but I retain hope it'd go to some cause other than profits.

 

Further, this seems to be another example of trying to type-cast the Twins front office in a certain manner. They are due their fair share of criticism, but it can at times seem like trying to make a round peg out of every possible situation to fit the round hole of a preconceived notion.

[PseudoSABR]

There were multiple reports from outside the Twins front office earlier in the season of deals involving prospects the Twins liked but that they wouldn't make because of money.

I'd like to see those reports. Because I can't recall seeing anything as definitive as that.

 

And the suggestion that Twins (or their PR people) would openly lie to LEN3 about their willingness to eat money seems totally unfair and pretty baseless. IMO, they'd simply say nothing at all, rather than leak an out-and-out lie.

[PseudoSABR]

Here is a quote from LaVelle Neal's column Aug. 29th regarding the Twins trying to trade Morneau & Willingham.

 

"3. TRADES: I don't expect the Twins to make any trades before the deadline - at least involving Justin Morneau or Josh Willingham. I'm getting indications that the interest in Morneau isn't that significant. They would have to eat salary if they move either Morneau or Willingham (which they are willing to do), but will that be enough to get a decent prospect in return?"

Thanks for tracking this down. I knew I saw this somewhere and wanted to mention it but I couldn't track it down.

[Kwak]

"Better prospect"? I strongly suspect that was an "untouchable" list for PITT and that $2MM wouldn't be anywhere near enough. I think Ryan made a good deal for the Twins--especially given the Twins' priorities. Consider the following rewards: 1) others will play 1B this September, giving a "longer look" at said players; 2) Clete Thomas will rarely play; 3) Presley might actually be good enough not only for next year but to trade (pehaps in a package) to acquire more useful talent; 4) the hope that the PTBNL actually makes meaningful contributions for the Twins in the future. All in all, pretty good.

[LaBombo]

Further, this seems to be another example of trying to type-cast the Twins front office in a certain manner. They are due their fair share of criticism, but it can at times seem like trying to make a round peg out of every possible situation to fit the round hole of a preconceived notion.

I'm not going to rehash the part that I didn't quote, other than to say it would be great if the Twins ever did anything with unspent payroll to directly improve the talent level in the organization, and likely a more efficient use as you say.

 

But everything I've read says that the Twins won't won't roll that money over into next season's payroll, put it into extensions, or re-purpose it for anything like the international draft. Until there's evidence to the contrary, your hope is just that to me.

 

And it's fine with me that you don't agree with my criticism of the front office with regard to Morneau, but writing it off as simple-minded bias doesn't really leave me with much incentive to try harder to see it your way.

[LaBombo]

I'd like to see those reports. Because I can't recall seeing anything as definitive as that.

 

And the suggestion that Twins (or their PR people) would openly lie to LEN3 about their willingness to eat money seems totally unfair and pretty baseless. IMO, they'd simply say nothing at all, rather than leak an out-and-out lie.

I'm assuming you're disregarding Gardenhire's statement that he had heard more than once that money was the issue in potential Morneau trades. Before I spend any time looking for other comments, are there any other sources off the table for unspecified reasons?

 

And who said anything about lying? All Ryan would have to do is say that the Twins would kick in cash for the right prospect while not stating that "the right prospect" is an A/A- starting pitcher. He's not lying, and yet cash would clearly be off the table in that situation.

[TheLeviathan]

There's simply no reason for Neal Huntington to even consider giving up a better prospect if his owner agreed to cover the salary.

 

Here's where your entire case falls apart. This was only agreed upon after roughly 6 weeks of negotiation at minimum (given how long rumors tied the teams together about him). As many teams have been noted publicly - finances are being watched closely. It's quite likely that the price tag of 2M vs. 5M was a sizable one for them. So the latitude only existed because the Pirates called the Twins bluff - they wanted to move him (likely to avoid 10/5) and the Pirates waited them out for the lowest possible contract to absorb knowing they were the only option the Twins had.

 

The problem lies at the Twins being stubborn even to put that option on the table. People keep suggesting that the opposing view is foolish because the Twins wouldn't have turned down a better package. The problem is that by all accounts - it was never on the table. The Twins never entertained picking up the cash so they never got better offers. They backed themselves into a low-value corner by their own stubborn behavior.

 

And, IMO, it's pretty hard behavior to justify given the team's current situation.

[golfboy1]

There were multiple reports from outside the Twins front office earlier in the season of deals involving prospects the Twins liked but that they wouldn't make because of money.

 

As for LEN's report, well, why on earth would the Twins front office admit to its fan base that it valued an extra two million in profit more than a prospect upgrade in a potential trade? In the long run that would seem to me to be a bigger PR hit than the actual loss of 4 weeks of Morneau.

 

And if Ryan finally did get religion as Morneau's value approached zero at the deadline and put money on the table for a realistically available prospect as LEN claims, well, good for him. Day late, dollar short, etc.

 

The fact that Morneau went unclaimed doesn't tell me much about his value, since almost no veteran players ever change hands in mid-season as a straightup waiver claim. If it were that simple, why didn't Pittsburgh just claim him and not give up players?

 

On the other hand, the reports that Ryan had already refused even one offer over money tells me quite a bit about where his priority was.

 

I don't recall this...

 

"There were multiple reports from outside the Twins front office earlier in the season of deals involving prospects the Twins liked but that they wouldn't make because of money."

 

I heard it regarding Morneau recently but I'm not aware of it being an issue earlier in the year.

 

So we are not to believe Len's column regarding the Twins willing to include money but it's ok to believe others regarding the Twins being cheap?

 

I'm not disclaiming that money WAS an issue. It's just how we interpret what it means.

 

It's possible that the Twins went to Pittsburgh & said..."We will pay $2M & we want your # 12 prospect. Pittsburg came back with ...no, you pay the 2M & we will send our #30 prospect. MN responded ...if we only get #30 then you have to cover his salary otherwise we want your #15 prospect. Pittsburgh could say.. You're not getting anything higher than #25 regardless of the money. I don't understand why the Twins would be so adamant about dumping his salary...since they would still have to pay it if the deal fell thru.

 

Players don't often change hands as a straight up waiver claim....although it does happen...but if Morneau had much value he would have been claimed.

 

If a player has value someone will claim him. A. So they have exclusive trading rights to him. B. To prevent another team from getting him. Apparently the Yankees (an example) weren't even the slightest bit worried that Baltimore would end up with Morneau & they didn't want to take a chance they would get stuck with his salary.

 

 

I wish Ryan could have gotten more for Morneau but I think he got decent value, considering the circumstances. I truly do not think Pittsburgh was ever going to give up a solid/better prospect for a player with such limited value.

[Major League Ready]

Here's where your entire case falls apart. This was only agreed upon after roughly 6 weeks of negotiation at minimum (given how long rumors tied the teams together about him). As many teams have been noted publicly - finances are being watched closely. It's quite likely that the price tag of 2M vs. 5M was a sizable one for them. So the latitude only existed because the Pirates called the Twins bluff - they wanted to move him (likely to avoid 10/5) and the Pirates waited them out for the lowest possible contract to absorb knowing they were the only option the Twins had.

 

The problem lies at the Twins being stubborn even to put that option on the table. People keep suggesting that the opposing view is foolish because the Twins wouldn't have turned down a better package. The problem is that by all accounts - it was never on the table. The Twins never entertained picking up the cash so they never got better offers. They backed themselves into a low-value corner by their own stubborn behavior.

 

And, IMO, it's pretty hard behavior to justify given the team's current situation.

 

 

With all due respect, anyone who has done a substantial amount of negotiation with multi-million dollar deals will tell you to presume to understand what went on, what the options were and how this played out from a distance is a real reach. This is a product of the zeal we have as fans. 16 pages of argument... How hard is it to understand we did not get much for a rental of a free agent 1st baseman near the bottom of the leauge statistically. And, the argument we should have traded him earlier because we would have gotten more does not fly either. Have some of you forgotten how poorly he was playing before Aug 1st. His play in July killed our opportunity to trade him before the 7/31 deadline. It's not that complicated!

[PseudoSABR]

I'm assuming you're disregarding Gardenhire's statement that he had heard more than once that money was the issue in potential Morneau trades. Before I spend any time looking for other comments, are there any other sources off the table for unspecified reasons?

What 'money being an issue' means is, well, up for interpretation. That Morneau was expensive, made him undesirable to obtain, and his baseball value made giving up much of value unpalatable. Money being an issue just means the deal isn't getting done; it does not mean that the Pirate are offering a better package if we pick up the tab. They want us to take a bad deal and pick up the tab (well, why wouldn't they?).

 

And who said anything about lying? All Ryan would have to do is say that the Twins would kick in cash for the right prospect while not stating that "the right prospect" is an A/A- starting pitcher. He's not lying, and yet cash would clearly be off the table in that situation.

There's another option here that you are dismissing out of hand, which I think likely. The better prospect was off the table. We have no reason to believe that a better prospect was offered to the Twins at any time. We can make inferences from Morneau's expense all we want, but there's nothing to tell us that the Pirates were offering us more talent in any scenario.

 

Apologies for the splice. I think we've stated our sides, and I don't mean to have the last word, but this is well-trodden territory, and we owe it to everyone to wrap up individual quibbles, let's keep that it mind as we wrap it up.

[Mike Sixel]

This whole thread just shows that people are in camps that will not change, but at least it was more civil than some here.....

[golfboy1]

Here's where your entire case falls apart. This was only agreed upon after roughly 6 weeks of negotiation at minimum (given how long rumors tied the teams together about him). As many teams have been noted publicly - finances are being watched closely. It's quite likely that the price tag of 2M vs. 5M was a sizable one for them. So the latitude only existed because the Pirates called the Twins bluff - they wanted to move him (likely to avoid 10/5) and the Pirates waited them out for the lowest possible contract to absorb knowing they were the only option the Twins had.

 

The problem lies at the Twins being stubborn even to put that option on the table. People keep suggesting that the opposing view is foolish because the Twins wouldn't have turned down a better package. The problem is that by all accounts - it was never on the table. The Twins never entertained picking up the cash so they never got better offers. They backed themselves into a low-value corner by their own stubborn behavior.

 

And, IMO, it's pretty hard behavior to justify given the team's current situation.

 

Here is where we differ.

 

I linked a LeVelle Neal column where he stated the Twins were willing to include cash. Here is another article which states the Twins were willing to include cash...

 

Pirates looking at Morneau after landing Marlon Byrd - CBSSports.com

 

"Morneau has cleared waivers, and word has been that the Twins are willing to pay some of the close to $3 million left on Morneau's $14 million salary, depending on the prospect worth returned in a trade."

 

Gardy makes a comment that "money is an issue" & some draw a straight line that it means ..."The Twins never entertained picking up the cash" & that the Twins are going the cheapest route.

 

It doesn't actually mean that. Maybe the Twins agreed on Presley & Welker but the Pirates insisted the Twins add 2M before they would agree to the deal. Maybe the Pirates caved at the last minute & Ryan got the players AND saved the 2M. Ryan should be GM of the year.

 

Obviously we don't know all the details but I don't see where the Twins refused to include money.

[TheLeviathan]

With all due respect, anyone who has done a substantial amount of negotiation with multi-million dollar deals will tell you to presume to understand what went on, what the options were and how this played out from a distance is a real reach.

 

And yet, an entire industry of journalism not only does this, but does it really well and quite accurately. So, if this is the basis for your argument, it's rather flimsy.

 

I've repeatedly said I don't know how much value they lost with their stubborn behavior. It might have been none. But they had ZERO reasons to be stubborn about it initially. They had no bargaining power save helping with his contract and they refused to put that on the table by all accounts. That, to me, is unacceptable. I hope they have a good reason for it, because the most obvious one is very upsetting.

[Willihammer]

We will never know. But the FA philosophy many espouse on this board is, wait till you're competitive and then spend big on FAs. Well, both the Os and Pirates are competitive. If they were to employ that strategy, then it stands to reason that they would be terrific matches with a rebuilding club who has lots of cash.

 

Maybe this is a little too Hollywood or farfetched, but I keep thinking of that scene in Moneyball, where Beane is desperate for cash so he trades Carlos Pena for Ted Lilly and 600,000 cash. Obviously neither the Os or the PIrates are as strapped for cash as the early 00s Athletics, but we do have clear evidence that Huntington was under a spending limit (albeit a flexible one).

 

So you can say "a 1month rental of a declining guy like Morneau isn't going to return a top prospect no matter what." Well, I ask again, what would Morneau, + 10 million cash get you? Maybe Huntington or Dan Duquette start outbidding each other for that. Maybe the As or Rays or Yankees want a piece of that action too.

[jay]

So you can say "a 1month rental of a declining guy like Morneau isn't going to return a top prospect no matter what." Well, I ask again, what would Morneau, + 10 million cash get you? Maybe Huntington or Dan Duquette start outbidding each other for that. Maybe the As or Rays or Yankees want a piece of that action too.

 

Great in theory, but not going to happen. The commissioner's office has to approve any trade with a transfer of more than $1M. The rule was specifically designed to prevent cases like this with a franchise selling their players for enrichment.

[Oxtung]

After a day of not looking at this thread I've decided it all comes down to this:

 

2011-2012 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Nathan, Kubel and Cuddyer. Payroll drops ~$18 million.

 

2012 Trades. Ryan receives ~$2 million in salary relief by trading Liriano.

 

2012-2013 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Pavano, Baker, Marquis, Capps, Casilla and trades Span. Payroll drops ~$18 million

 

2013 trades. Ryan receives ~$3.3 million in salary relief by trading Carroll and Morneau.

 

Since Terry Ryan's return the Twins have saved ~$60 million on payroll.

 

You can look at any individual transaction above and make an argument that money wasn't the driving factor but in the end, when you step back and look at the larger picture, Ryan has chosen time and again to cut payroll and save the Pohlad's millions of dollars. Now you can couch that in terms like "that's what rebuilding teams do" and "he doesn't want to spend just to spend" (whatever that means) but how has that helped the Twins? Here we are 2 years after Ryan returned and the Twins are going to lose 90 games for a 3rd straight season. 2014 isn't looking much better. The starting rotation is much worse. The lineup is worse. In fact the only player that I can point to and say, "here is a part of the solution" is Brian Dozier, and even that should come with an asterisk.

 

So here is what I see. A Twins team that is floundering with players that will not be a part of the solution. A team that is bad defensively, a lineup that is near the bottom in the league and a rotation that is racing towards the title, "Worst rotation in the history of major league baseball." And I see $60 million dollars sitting on the table because "the Twins aren't cheap" and "that's what rebuilding teams do".

[old nurse]

After a day of not looking at this thread I've decided it all comes down to this:

 

2011-2012 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Nathan, Kubel and Cuddyer. Payroll drops ~$18 million.

 

2012 Trades. Ryan receives ~$2 million in salary relief by trading Liriano.

 

2012-2013 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Pavano, Baker, Marquis, Capps, Casilla and trades Span. Payroll drops ~$18 million

 

2013 trades. Ryan receives ~$3.3 million in salary relief by trading Carroll and Morneau.

 

Since Terry Ryan's return the Twins have saved ~$60 million on payroll.

 

You can look at any individual transaction above and make an argument that money wasn't the driving factor but in the end, when you step back and look at the larger picture, Ryan has chosen time and again to cut payroll and save the Pohlad's millions of dollars. Now you can couch that in terms like "that's what rebuilding teams do" and "he doesn't want to spend just to spend" (whatever that means) but how has that helped the Twins? Here we are 2 years after Ryan returned and the Twins are going to lose 90 games for a 3rd straight season. 2014 isn't looking much better. The starting rotation is much worse. The lineup is worse. In fact the only player that I can point to and say, "here is a part of the solution" is Brian Dozier, and even that should come with an asterisk.

 

So here is what I see. A Twins team that is floundering with players that will not be a part of the solution. A team that is bad defensively, a lineup that is near the bottom in the league and a rotation that is racing towards the title, "Worst rotation in the history of major league baseball." And I see $60 million dollars sitting on the table because "the Twins aren't cheap" and "that's what rebuilding teams do".

 

And if the Twins re-signed the players listed above, not have signed Willingham and Doumit they would have been better off? Carroll's and Mourneau's production with the other players would push the team to the promised land this last month? That is an interesting take on what is wrong.

[IdahoPilgrim]

After a day of not looking at this thread I've decided it all comes down to this:

 

2011-2012 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Nathan, Kubel and Cuddyer. Payroll drops ~$18 million.

 

2012 Trades. Ryan receives ~$2 million in salary relief by trading Liriano.

 

2012-2013 Off season. Ryan decides not to resign Pavano, Baker, Marquis, Capps, Casilla and trades Span. Payroll drops ~$18 million

 

2013 trades. Ryan receives ~$3.3 million in salary relief by trading Carroll and Morneau.

 

Since Terry Ryan's return the Twins have saved ~$60 million on payroll.

 

You can look at any individual transaction above and make an argument that money wasn't the driving factor but in the end, when you step back and look at the larger picture, Ryan has chosen time and again to cut payroll and save the Pohlad's millions of dollars. Now you can couch that in terms like "that's what rebuilding teams do" and "he doesn't want to spend just to spend" (whatever that means) but how has that helped the Twins? Here we are 2 years after Ryan returned and the Twins are going to lose 90 games for a 3rd straight season. 2014 isn't looking much better. The starting rotation is much worse. The lineup is worse. In fact the only player that I can point to and say, "here is a part of the solution" is Brian Dozier, and even that should come with an asterisk.

 

So here is what I see. A Twins team that is floundering with players that will not be a part of the solution. A team that is bad defensively, a lineup that is near the bottom in the league and a rotation that is racing towards the title, "Worst rotation in the history of major league baseball." And I see $60 million dollars sitting on the table because "the Twins aren't cheap" and "that's what rebuilding teams do".

 

I disagree with the whole premise of this post, which seems to be embodied in the part in bold.

 

Is the payroll lower? Yes. Is it because the driving force behind the listed personnel moves is to make more money for the owners? That's a matter of interpretation, and I disagree with the one given here. One can be validly critical of whether Ryan should spend more on payroll without tying it to the meme of "owner greed." That's gotten old.

 

And I for one am just as glad that Liriano was traded (his performance this year notwithstanding) and that Pavano, Baker, Marquis, Capps & Casilla are no longer Twins. And the Span trade was a good move widely praised at the time.

[ashbury]

Ryan has chosen time and again to cut payroll

 

Well yes, because your "time and again"s are limited to years 2011-13 when the team was on the way to a putrid record by the time these moves were made. What would be the equivalent moves in 2010 when they were on the way to a division title? (I'm serious, I don't know at the moment how to look up a season's transactions, and maybe he did shed payroll in July.)

 

Is it really wrong to say in July-August that we're not winning so what's the point of spending $X for the rest of the season? And does it apply as a forecast of future actions in seasons that aren't like that?

 

/ edit - heh, Pilgrim and I reacted pretty much to the same thing

[Oxtung]

John, Pilgrim, Old Nurse-

 

As I said, you can justify any of the individual points if you try hard enough. Let me ask you just one question:

 

Do you think saving $60 million has helped the Twins return to contention?