And then there were two.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Simplistic and unfair.

 

Mike later clarified his position on this post. Nothing to see here, let's drop it.

[JB_Iowa]

To me, that says he was unwilling to accept the reality of his market position.

 

I think he came to HAVE to accept the reality of his market position as we got into March but early on, he was very unrealistic. According to Ken Rosenthal, he wanted more than $100 million/5 years. At the same time, Nolasco supposedly wanted $80 million/5 years.

 

The difference was that Nolasco and his team got realistic very quickly and signed his deal with the Twins before much dust had settled.

 

Santana was seemingly waiting for the Tanaka situation to be resolved -- possibly hoping to cash in on the shirt tails.

 

And when that seemingly didn't work in his favor and time went on, he fired his agent.

 

I have to think that there is a lot of unhappiness on the Santana's part (and that's why he went with the one-year deal). Unhappiness over the impact that the compensatory pick has (lots of lessons learned from Lohse last year, Santana and others). Unhappiness over a player, unproven in mlb, receiving $155 m/7 years. (Tanaka may very well prove to be worth $22m/year but there still has to be unhappiness among some veterans over the price paid for him compared to what #2/upper #3 tier, proven mlb regulars are getting). Unhappiness with his agents and the way they read the market.

 

If Santana is injured or has a bad season, this may all blow up in his face. But I have to admire him for betting on himself. He did what could be done to salvage the situation -- going to the NL -- to a team with a reputation for good pitching and with prospects for a good season. I wish him well.

[bird]

I don't understand that. If you think the player can help your club why do you have to low ball the guy? They have plenty of money if you want a guy do what it takes.

 

He does nothing to help the club if you don't sign him and the money does nothing to help the club in Pohlads bank unspent.

 

I'm not sure I would want the guy but if you do a few extra million isn't going to kill the team.

 

This would make sense if we knew what Santana would have taken. For argument's sake, I'll guess Santana wanted $42M over 3 years and the Twins decided that he wasn't worth that bet. So they let Santana roll his own dice with someone else.

[bird]

edited because I can't type this am....

 

As fans, I don't know why anyone does......but there is no right way to be a fan, so feel how you want to feel. Many fans want their teams to win, and don't care if the owners make zero dollars or $30-50MM per year in profits. I have no idea why anyone cares.

 

mike, it's not about caring so much as respecting someone else's decisions. Also, it doesn't do fans any good if our favorite team make irresponsible financial decisions that later must be rectified. It's really not that dissimilar to how most of us respect our employers' interests in turning a profit. In a bad year, we're not going to snicker in our cubicles gloating that they're losing their shirts, even if we feel a bit underpaid. So yeah, some of us "care".

[Mike Sixel]

Fair enough. I'm not asking them to do things I think are stupid.....I wouldn't recommend them if I thought that. I think your example is off. I have a personal reason to care if my company makes money or not. I have no incentive (imo) to care if the billionaires that own the Twins make money or lose money on them. The only reason I should care (imo) is if it keeps them from later doing the right things. Given that they have piled up in the range of $50-100MM in "excess" profits over the 52% the last three years, and added another $25MM in revenue this year while adding 2MM in costs....I'm not too worried about them losing money.

[cmathewson]

No, 2010 was disastrous because they had no good players on the roster, and no one in AA or AAA ready to come up and help. There was no lack of flexibility in payroll in 2011, 12, or 13. There was a lack of talent. That is partly due to drafting, development, trades, and lack of FA signings that really helped the team in that time frame. It had nothing to do with payroll inflexibility.

 

Payroll in 2011 was $115 million, which was more than 52% of revenue. That was with a pathetic team, which was only going to get worse with the exits of Baker, Cuddyer, Kubel, Thome, etc., the loss of key pieces like Ramos and Hardy, and investments in losers like Nishioka. At that point, they had to blow it up and start over. They didn't have the farm system to build a competitive team in one year. They had neither the talent without or within to build a contender this quickly. It's not about willingness to spend. It's about talent availability. Name one team that started over from scratch and contended within three years.

[bird]

Mike later clarified his position on this post. Nothing to see here, let's drop it.

 

Just caught mike's update. Thanks, mike, we're good as always.

[Mike Sixel]

didn't I say the same thing? The problem was a lack of talent?

 

I guess I should have said they were under 52% of revenue, every year but 1 since opening the new stadium, not the last three years. that's probably more accurate, and probably more damning (if you believe buying good players is a good idea).

[tobi0040]

Fair enough. I'm not asking them to do things I think are stupid.....I wouldn't recommend them if I thought that. I think your example is off. I have a personal reason to care if my company makes money or not. I have no incentive (imo) to care if the billionaires that own the Twins make money or lose money on them. The only reason I should care (imo) is if it keeps them from later doing the right things. Given that they have piled up in the range of $50-100MM in "excess" profits over the 52% the last three years, and added another $25MM in revenue this year while adding 2MM in costs....I'm not too worried about them losing money.

 

We need to first start with an objective, then what is the best way to achieve that objective.

 

I think with a team you have four options.

 

1) Win at all costs and lose money (Tigers)

 

2) Spend up to a reasonable profit and field the best team, while not hurting long term prospects and/or blocking top prospects. Break even or make $5M a year.

 

3) Spend enough to not be called cheap, find value in players, have a good or respectable win to payroll ratio. Make $10-15m+ a year.

 

4) Make money at all costs, i.e. have a $30M payroll. We would certainly make money here.

 

I agree with Mike 100% that asking that we bring payroll up to say $100-$110M is not unreasonable. The team is still making money at this level. They received $150M in tax funds to get a stadium, that helped boostthe value of the franchise from $280M to over $700M (which makes the yearly revenue for payroll discussion a bit arbitrary).

 

Which bucket do the Twins fit in? We can say no to #1 and #4. I would argue #3. We are sitting $10-$20M above the metrodome payroll. $30M under 52% of revenue. Payroll over the next 1-2 years could be at this level or lower with prospects filling roles. If #2 was the objective, it is hard to see how we don't sign Ervin over Pelfrey (or sign Ervin and trade KC). Sign Cruz and DH him or move Josh or Arcia to DH. Sign Drew, etc. These undoubtedly make the team better and don't block the prospects that we care about in the near future (Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Gibson). I don't see how the lottery ticket approach to turning this team around, Kubel, Matt G, Bartlett, etc, is the way to go.

[cmathewson]

We need to first start with an objective, then what is the best way to achieve that objective.

 

I think with a team you have four options.

 

1) Win at all costs and lose money (Tigers)

 

2) Spend up to a reasonable profit and field the best team, while not hurting long term prospects and/or blocking top prospects. Break even or make $5M a year.

 

3) Spend enough to not be called cheap, find value in players, have a good or respectable win to payroll ratio. Make $10-15m+ a year.

 

4) Make money at all costs, i.e. have a $30M payroll. We would certainly make money here.

 

I agree with Mike 100% that asking that we bring payroll up to say $100-$110M is not unreasonable. The team is still making money at this level. They received $150M in tax funds to get a stadium, that helped boostthe value of the franchise from $280M to over $700M (which makes the yearly revenue for payroll discussion a bit arbitrary).

 

Which bucket do the Twins fit in? We can say no to #1 and #4. I would argue #3. We are sitting $10-$20M above the metrodome payroll. $30M under 52% of revenue. Payroll over the next 1-2 years could be at this level or lower with prospects filling roles. If #2 was the objective, it is hard to see how we don't sign Ervin over Pelfrey (or sign Ervin and trade KC). Sign Cruz and DH him or move Josh or Arcia to DH. Sign Drew, etc. These undoubtedly make the team better and don't block the prospects that we care about in the near future (Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Gibson). I don't see how the lottery ticket approach to turning this team around, Kubel, Matt G, Bartlett, etc, is the way to go.

 

Good discussion. I vote for 2, but it looks like 3 is closer to their operating model.

[Mike Sixel]

I would also vote number two, as a fan. As an owner, I'd probably go for 3 if I was worried about money coming from this investment on a cash flow basis, and not just a long term team value basis.

[righty8383]

These 5 users like Brock Beauchamp's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

birdwatcher

(Today),

ChiTownTwinsFan

(Today),

howieramone

(Today),

James

(Today),

TheLeviathan

(Today)

 

 

Look at all of these butt kissers;)

[Dman]

I think he came to HAVE to accept the reality of his market position as we got into March but early on, he was very unrealistic. According to Ken Rosenthal, he wanted more than $100 million/5 years. At the same time, Nolasco supposedly wanted $80 million/5 years.

 

The difference was that Nolasco and his team got realistic very quickly and signed his deal with the Twins before much dust had settled.

 

Santana was seemingly waiting for the Tanaka situation to be resolved -- possibly hoping to cash in on the shirt tails.

 

And when that seemingly didn't work in his favor and time went on, he fired his agent.

 

I have to think that there is a lot of unhappiness on the Santana's part (and that's why he went with the one-year deal). Unhappiness over the impact that the compensatory pick has (lots of lessons learned from Lohse last year, Santana and others). Unhappiness over a player, unproven in mlb, receiving $155 m/7 years. (Tanaka may very well prove to be worth $22m/year but there still has to be unhappiness among some veterans over the price paid for him compared to what #2/upper #3 tier, proven mlb regulars are getting). Unhappiness with his agents and the way they read the market.

 

If Santana is injured or has a bad season, this may all blow up in his face. But I have to admire him for betting on himself. He did what could be done to salvage the situation -- going to the NL -- to a team with a reputation for good pitching and with prospects for a good season. I wish him well.

 

Yeah I have got to agree with you. The fact that he is betting on himself with a one year deal says a lot. It says he personally doesn't feel he will have a down year next year and that his arm is fine and will be in the future.

 

He picked an NL team to give himself the best chance to lower the ERA etc. So any concerns myself and or other teams had he certainly doesn't share or he would have taken the years instead. I hope it works out for him but it is a long season and you are only a pitch away from injury.

 

I also think that if the Twins really wanted him they could have made this work. I have to believe that 3 years for 40 Million would have gotten it done and even if he needed a little bit more than that it wouldn't have hurt them as long as they kept him to three years. They have Correa and Willingham coming off the books the end of this year so they could still get players next year if they wanted to.

 

You have to admit there is known risk with signing Santana. He has had up and down years and there are questions about the UCL. It seems a lot of teams were not that interested in taking on those risks for the money he would like to make.

[righty8383]

We need to first start with an objective, then what is the best way to achieve that objective.

 

I think with a team you have four options.

 

1) Win at all costs and lose money (Tigers)

 

2) Spend up to a reasonable profit and field the best team, while not hurting long term prospects and/or blocking top prospects. Break even or make $5M a year.

 

3) Spend enough to not be called cheap, find value in players, have a good or respectable win to payroll ratio. Make $10-15m+ a year.

 

4) Make money at all costs, i.e. have a $30M payroll. We would certainly make money here.

 

.

 

#2 is the most realistic and sensible option. #4 if you graduated from the Jeffrey Loria school of sports franchise ownership.

[tobi0040]

I would also vote number two, as a fan. As an owner, I'd probably go for 3 if I was worried about money coming from this investment on a cash flow basis, and not just a long term team value basis.

 

I would vote for #2 as well, but also agree #3.

 

Unfortunately we don't get a vote. They say it is easier to spend someone else's money. But if I had the net worth and was sitting on something I inherited that went up $400M in 5-6 years, I would probably not say....you know this team would win an extra two or three games with Ervin over KC or Drew over Florimon, but it is not worth the extra $7-8M (reduced by any increase in revenue). I would like to think I would pull the trigger.

[jokin]

Simplistic and unfair.

 

Unfair to Twins fans and taxpayers, yes. And just because what Mike said was simplistic, doesn't make it essentially untrue.

[jokin]

#2 is the most realistic and sensible option. #4 if you graduated from the Jeffrey Loria school of sports franchise ownership.

 

I think the rest of the owners keep that guy around, just to say: "See, it could be worse!"

[jokin]

The Twins handled the Santana and Garza situation correctly, IMO. Lowball them late in the offseason and if one bites, great. If not, that's fine. I think they should be focusing on offense at this point anyway.

 

Hopefully they feel the same way.

 

They may feel that way, but what have they done for me lately?

[jokin]

Well, I'd guess that means they are done. I don't see them signing Drew and giving up a guy that is unlikely to ever have more than 3-5 total WAR in his life. They aren't winning anything this year, not with question marks at LF, CF, 3B, SS, DH, C, maybe even 2B and RF.

 

Stay away from any ledges in your building, Mike.

 

I fear with these half-hearted efforts at improvement attempts, even with more than ample cash in the till and no obvious heirs apparent being blocked, there's even more "not winning anything" beyond just 2014. Dang, now I'm making myself depressed, good thing I work in a one-story building.

[biggentleben]

I love the signing. He should do very well in the crap division the Braves are in, and he's going to eat innings. The Braves have a lot of talent better than Medlen in the rotation, but Medlen would have been a solid 200-220 innings, so that's really what they needed to replace.

[jokin]

I love the signing. He should do very well in the crap division the Braves are in, and he's going to eat innings. The Braves have a lot of talent better than Medlen in the rotation, but Medlen would have been a solid 200-220 innings, so that's really what they needed to replace.

 

Do you have to rub it in, Ben? Gotta give your Bravos credit, once Medlen went down they immediately recognized the perfect fit Santana is for their rotation, and acted quickly and decisively to get it done- payroll and potential lost draft pick be damned.

[jokin]

That was why 2010 was so disastrous. The Twins spent and then crashed and burned, and there was no flexibility to do anything about it until this year. Now the hole is so deep it will take a couple of years to patch it up, if the process works, which is not guaranteed.

 

Actually, there was flexibility, especially if they believed their own PR about being a different club philosophically and financially, in Target Field. I wrote about it at the time, the Twins had enough players coming off the payroll, that they could have retained most of the key players and upgraded the roster at the same time, all with about the same payroll as 2011, a little less or little more, depending on if they retained Joe Nathan or not. They just had the wrong guy running the team and an owner who paniced when it all fell apart.

[tobi0040]

Do you have to rub it in, Ben? Gotta give your Bravos credit, once Medlen went down they immediately recognized the perfect fit Santana is for their rotation, and acted quickly and decisively to get it done- payroll and potential lost draft pick be damned.

 

I agree and really love what they are doing over there. Tough break for Medlen, the second TJ is typically a horrible one for your career. A career 2.95 ERA over 512 IP. But they have had TJ out of Medlen x 2, Beachy, and Tommy Hansen was a can't miss prospect pre-TJ as well. And they still have a good young rotation and team. Lot of young studs on that team and they haven't been drafting in the top 5 or 10 consistently for a very long time.

[DaveW]

Can we please not turn this into yet another discussion of (52% of payroll, so the Twins should be spending xMillion this year?) We get it, every fan of every team wants their team to spend more money, the owners are rich blah blah blah. It doesn't need to take over and dominate every thread.

 

It's even more dumbfounding to bring up, since the Twins were and are clearly willing to take on significantly more salary this off-season (see: Garza and Santana offers) If you want to argue that the Twins should have offered more to either of those players.. thats fine, but stop bringing up this stupid and tired (52% of revenues meme)

[tobi0040]

Can we please not turn this into yet another discussion of (52% of payroll, so the Twins should be spending xMillion this year?) We get it, every fan of every team wants their team to spend more money, the owners are rich blah blah blah. It doesn't need to take over and dominate every thread.

 

It's even more dumbfounding to bring up, since the Twins were and are clearly willing to take on significantly more salary this off-season (see: Garza and Santana offers) If you want to argue that the Twins should have offered more to either of those players.. thats fine, but stop bringing up this stupid and tired (52% of revenues meme)

 

So the league directive on where a team can spend and still make money should not be part of the commentary? Should we take Pohlad and St. Peter at their word when they say "we spent $75M this offseason on pitching so don't say we won't spend". Or should we think logically and say, but payroll is the same?

 

The point was to suggest the motives of a fan and owner are different. Even if we signed one extra guy at $10M, the guidepost of 52% of revenue is helpful because we would still be a long way from it.

 

Lastly, I did argue we should have offered 3/38 plus a vested 4th year based on innings for Ervin.

[Mike Sixel]

The argument being made was that they should not spend "too much money" that would "keep them from making moves later" I merely pointed out that they are making plenty of money, that probably even the year they "spent a lot more than budget" they still made money. The ONLY data point we have is the 52% number they and the league have provided.

 

but I'm happy to say they should have offered more the AJ or Salty to sign one of them. Then signed Santana instead of Pelfrey. Then signed Drew.

[tobi0040]

The argument being made was that they should not spend "too much money" that would "keep them from making moves later" I merely pointed out that they are making plenty of money, that probably even the year they "spent a lot more than budget" they still made money. The ONLY data point we have is the 52% number they and the league have provided.

 

but I'm happy to say they should have offered more the AJ or Salty to sign one of them. Then signed Santana instead of Pelfrey. Then signed Drew.

 

I agree on all points. That was the point I was making and that truly is the only data point we have.

[jokin]

If you want to argue that the Twins should have offered more to either of those players.. thats fine, but stop bringing up this stupid and tired (52% of revenues meme)

 

Sorry, but this 52% meme was the line drawn in the sand by ownership and management to get their playpen palace built, not by the fans. And this is a stadium that enriched the value of their team several-fold over. It's clearly not a "stupid and tired meme", it's the critical cudgel that fans can use to hoist ownership on the petard of their own making. And it's not "dumbfounding" to bring up, it's past time to hold management responsible for actually getting the deals done that have to get done to return this team to respectability, (rather than publicize, post-haste, all of their oh-so-close, sure-to-be-declined, 2nd place finishes for elite talent). The vast holes still evident on this roster clearly indicate that they still feel comfortable charging major league prices for too much minor league talent. It would also be nice if they can actually get a few of their prospects from the vaunted farm system established as bona fide major leaguers before their 6-year minor league clock stops ticking- at this point anyway, it appears that they are pulling back all, or almost all of the young guns in favor of place-holders.

[cmathewson]

Sorry, but this 52% meme was the line drawn in the sand by ownership and management to get their playpen palace built, not by the fans. And this is a stadium that enriched the value of their team several-fold over. It's clearly not a "stupid and tired meme", it's the critical cudgel that fans can use to hoist ownership on the petard of their own making. And it's not "dumbfounding" to bring up, it's past time to hold management responsible for actually getting the deals done that have to get done to return this team to respectability, (rather than publicize, post-haste, all of their oh-so-close, sure-to-be-declined, 2nd place finishes for elite talent). The vast holes still evident on this roster clearly indicate that they still feel comfortable charging major league prices for too much minor league talent. It would also be nice if they can actually get a few of their prospects from the vaunted farm system established as bona fide major leaguers before their 6-year minor league clock stops ticking- at this point anyway, it appears that they are pulling back all, or almost all of the young guns in favor of place-holders.

 

I'm with Dave. It gets really tiring to have every thread degrade into: "The FO should have acquired Player X but they didn't because the owners are greedy mofus living off the taxpayer's teets."

 

Thing is, that line doesn't even make sense. You have to win to make money. (In this market more than most.) You have to spend money to win. Ergo, you have to spend money to make money.

 

I'm not a moderator. But it is a serious bummer man when every FA discussion goes down that rat hole.

[DaveW]

Sorry, but this 52% meme was the line drawn in the sand by ownership and management to get their playpen palace built, not by the fans. And this is a stadium that enriched the value of their team several-fold over. It's clearly not a "stupid and tired meme", it's the critical cudgel that fans can use to hoist ownership on the petard of their own making. And it's not "dumbfounding" to bring up, it's past time to hold management responsible for actually getting the deals done that have to get done to return this team to respectability, (rather than publicize, post-haste, all of their oh-so-close, sure-to-be-declined, 2nd place finishes for elite talent). The vast holes still evident on this roster clearly indicate that they still feel comfortable charging major league prices for too much minor league talent. It would also be nice if they can actually get a few of their prospects from the vaunted farm system established as bona fide major leaguers before their 6-year minor league clock stops ticking- at this point anyway, it appears that they are pulling back all, or almost all of the young guns in favor of place-holders.

 

No it is dumb to bring up in every freaking thread. This thread is about if the Twins should sign Drew and/or Morales, and it is pretty clear that the Twins have the budget to do so. They have enough to sign both, it literally has nothing to do with this 52% stuff.

 

I would love to hear which top prospects are getting held back in favor of place-holders?

Is Arica not getting a shot? Is Hicks not giving a shot to regain the starting position? Does anyone honestly think that Pinto won't be the regular catcher if he hits at all? Is Gibson not being given ops?