JB_Iowa

http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_24743601/tom-powers-twins-top-prospects-will-be-good Thought this was a little interesting. No breaking news just some overall impressions from Gene Glynn. And a reminder of how much Rochester has turned around in the 2 years since there were questions about whether they would want to renew their franchise agreement with the Twins.

Really like this column, JC. Read it first on Knuckleballs but didn't get a chance to comment. I love the image of all those 20 somethings in suits scurrying around. I especially appreciate your analysis of the possibilities of adding a significant position player. It just doesn't seem like there's many improvements available in ways that make sense for the Twins. I haven't seen any Stephen Drew rumors lately so do we have a feel for whether Ryan would be willing to give up the draft pick to sign him?

I'm not really sure how much we can conclude about anything. If I am reading Jeremy Nygaard's chart correctly, the Twins are currently at about $84m for opening day 2014. I think that number goes up to about $86m if Kubel makes the team out of ST (there are also some incentives so it could be a little higher) and I'm not sure what would happen if Bartlett makes the team. Last year's opening day payroll was $82m. Then there is $25m-$30m of new TV revenue so even taking just 50% of that, the team's opening day payroll 2014 should be at about $95m following the Twins most basic business model. (I'm not going to get into the question here of whether they are close to 50% of overall revenues). So, as of today, if TR makes no additional signings, the teams will STILL have reduced payroll as a % of revenue because they haven't yet spent 1/2 of the new TV revenues. While it seems to me that TR upgraded the quality of his free agent signings, it really wasn't a "splurge" compared to the money that was available to him. While I'd like to conclude that this signals that the Twins are moving from small-market to mid-market mentality in terms of willingness to accept some bigger risk that free agent contracts may go bad, I'm not sure that's a legitimate conclusion.

This thread is an example of one of the things that drives me nuts. The moderators around here do a superhuman job of trying to keep things on track and I am grateful for it. But this particular thread was totally derailed by approximately 25 posts on whether signing Greinke and/or Sanchez could result in enough revenue to justify the contract. And what burns me the most is that it can't be proved one way or the other -- it is all hypothetical. No one knows with certainty the impact that signing a free agent would have on the team or on the fan base. It is all entirely speculation. There simply aren't any FACTS on which to make the argument -- one way or the other. You can talk about average ticket prices, you can talk about concession sales, etc. BUT no one has any way of PROVING the impact that the player would have after what was then 2 losing seasons in an outdoor stadium that was less than 3 years old. To the moderators, I'm sorry for being snarky about this but I am also angry that what started out as a wonderful philosophical discussion of the perceptions of the Front Office's moves this year has deteriorated into what we've seen the last 35 posts or so. And I am sorry that I made post #104 because all it did was add to the steaming pile.

Why do so many people seem to view this differently than a mlb player demanding an increase in his contract mid-term? In general, people seem to view it as greedy when a U.S. player demands a big raise mid-contract (I remember some big hullabaloo a few years ago over a football player on this issue). That is essentially what Tanaka is doing here. He signed a contract to pitch for Rakuten through 2015. Perhaps there was discussion at the time about a release if he wanted to go to the U.S. but it looks as though the basis for any agreement on that point has been changed by the change in the rules on the posting fee. I've been bothered by some articles I've seen recently (can't find them back) indicating that Rakuten would take a public relations hit if they didn't allow Tanaka to go to the U.S. I fail to see what is so honorable about Tanaka asking to be let out of his contract. Also, Berardino linked to an interesting column: http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/how-rakuten-can-get-around-the-20-million-posting-cap-for-masahiro-tanaka/#.UrGXKmHSnwU.twitter I suspect that there will be a lot of maneuvering to try to get around the "cap". On the question of whether the primary reason for the posting fee limit was concerns over the luxury tax, why not just impose the tax on the posting fee over $20m but still allow bidding? I was of the opinion that the new system is a bit of a benefit to small and mid-market teams because it caps the amount not subject to the luxury tax and then levels the playing field in a regular free agent situation. But I'm not sure it really matters because the "big boys" will always have more money to spend if they have the willingness to do so. The thing that the posting system most affects is the contractual relationship between the NPB team and its player. While teams and players will undoubtedly take the new system into account in their current contract negotiations, there is an impact on contracts already in existence. It will be interesting to see what Rakuten decides to do.

Have to assume that the overall mlb revenue question includes everything. Dodgers' money is just their local TV deal, I think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/12/17/major-league-baseball-sees-record-revenues-exceed-8-billion-for-2013/ "It was a very good year for Major League Baseball; as in historic. According to a source speaking on condition of anonymity, for 2013 MLB gross revenues will exceed $8 billion for the first time, ever. While exact figures were not revealed, baseball will end 2013 with revenues between $8-$8.5 billion." This is compared to about $7.5 billion the previous year despite flat attendance. The thing this story highlights is again the TV revenues question. And the Dodgers' reported deal again points out the disparities in local TV revenues. TF is good for the Twins' revenues. Better demographics in the TV market would be much, much better.

I wasn't a fan of them trying to sign Greinke last year primarily because of the timing but also because I'm just not a big fan of his. But trying to pin all of this down in dollars and cents based on how many wins a pitcher may produce and how much $$$ each win will produce (or how many tickets it will sell) just seems like a ridiculous exercise to me. As I recall, the Houston Astros were one of the most (if not the most) profitable teams in baseball last year ... despite going 51-111 and having an opening day payroll of less than $27m. If everything just comes down to $$$, then obviously that is the way to go. Virtually no risk and great financial rewards. But I hope that ownership has a little more pride than that and a little more concern for the fans than that and is willing to TRY to put a reputable product on the field. I still don't think they should have signed Greinke last year but I do think they could have afforded to do so.

It is a lot more rewarding to think that someone might have to be dropped despite pitching well than to think about how to scrape together enough pitching to make it through the season. It could still go to h*ll in a handbasket but at least I feel like the Twins have tried to put together a rotation worthy of the term "major league pitching staff". I'll go with: Nolasco Hughes Pelfrey Correia Worley (mostly because I feel like we never got to appreciate his "Vanimal" side)

Thanks for the analysis. For me this all comes down to the Twins signing 3 pitchers with potentially higher up-sides than they've signed in the past. Will all 3 work out? I have no idea. Would it be a disaster if one of the three didn't? No. Obviously it will hurt more financially if Nolasco or Hughes fails than if Pelfrey fails but the failure of any one of them wouldn't kill this team financially (they are still at 2013 levels and haven't spent any of the new TV money OR moved back to what we believe was 50%-52% of revenues even without the TV money). In the long run, this is part of what I was hoping for from the Twins. That Terry Ryan would show that he was willing to risk a little more to get some guys who might have a higher payoff rather than always just dumpster divining. I see this as a step -- not a leap but a nice step in moving to being a successful mid-market team. And someday I hope that success with these smaller steps may pay off in a willingness to take a leap in the free agent market or in buying out arbitration years, etc. I'd also like to see some additional action on position players either through FA or trade. I hope TR's phone is working hard.

My only hope is that Ron Gardenhire does not name his starting rotation before Spring Training begins.

I was thinking about the "short leash" question and the fact that ultimately TR cut loose Jason Marquis. While shedding payroll in such a manner isn't ideal (and would really hurt on Nolasco and Hughes), there is at least a little precedent for thinking that the Twins are hedging their bets with the understanding that they may have to eat some salary at some point.

That's paper. Real life can be a lot different. It really depends on what they see, how players develop and what happens on the injury front. I don't think the Twins will block Meyer and Gibson if they felt they feel they are really ready (Gibson, in particular, is old enough that there's not much use worrying about years of team control). I just don't think they want to get caught in the same misery as last year. Maybe the pitching gods will smile on the Twins and they'll have a number of starters who belong in a major league rotation. But my gut feeling is that it will all shake out.

I never know the answer to that. Is it better to promote too soon (assuming the team isn't good anyway) or is it better to let them get their reps at the appropriate level?

Aren't there multiple writers on fangraphs? Couldn't that be why predictions/positions aren't always consistent? Even on TD, you find variations among the bloggers.

That's true. In addition, I think the Twins knew that fans were starved to see them open up the checkbook a bit. So perception has something to do with it. But I also think (and hope) that performance has something to do with it. There's risk involved with any FA acquisition. There's no guarantees that Nolasco or Hughes or Pelfrey will work out -- but at least with multiples the risk goes down a little because SOMEONE (or more than 1 someone) should provide some stability in the rotation.

Presumably there are also rules in place that prevent the NPB team from negotiating a "deal" with the player, such as, we'll post you but we get 10% of your contract (kind of like another agent there)? Essentially a fee for releasing them from their NPB contract -- that is, a fee in addition to the fee that the MLB team is already paying. I assume the rules forbid this?

Thanks so much for the link. Great story. I remember the win in Game 6 .... and the crushing disappointment of Game 7. The thrill of racing home from school to watch the World Series in DAYLIGHT. The 65 Twins were the start of nearly 50 years of a love of baseball and the Twins for me ... land Mudcat was a big part of that team.

But they still have money to sign people for those positions ..... if they can find anyone to sign (I'm sure they could find room on the 40-man for someone really desirable). JimCrikket just posted a nice summary of the winter meetings on his Knuckleballs blog (it'll find its way on here sometime soon, I'm sure but here's the link: http://knuckleballsblog.com/2013/12/16/winter-meetings-and-expectations/) His points about WHO they could sign for those positions are good ones. What are you going to do with Willingham to add someone else in LF? What CF would want to sign with the Twins given Buxton looming in the near future (and actually, given the possibility of improvement by Hicks, too). He didn't say it but do we really need another DH candidate? What will you do with Doumit? Short Stop seems to be the one place the could upgrade if they signed Drew. And, some depth at catcher would make me feel better, too. But given that they are still only at about $83m, there is nothing in the Pelfrey signing that prevents them from trying to make some upgrades to position players. Now, admittedly, if they would manage to sign Garza, there'd be a squeeze .... but that would be a squeeze I could live with.

If you had told me before the off-season started that they would sign Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey, I think I would have been satisfied so I'm not going to complain much now. Just enjoy those catnaps while he pitches. Yawn.

Another great article. Seeing a lot of tweets that Tanaka will NOT be posted but don't recognize any of the sources. Has anyone seen something from something they would consider "official"? EDIT: This update from MLB Trade Rumors appears to be the most accurate info available right now: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/masahiro-tanaka/ Still in limbo.

Love these kinds of stories!

In on Garza I can understand. Anyone else? I just don't get it. Much better to put that money toward a catcher and bat(s). (Yes, I know there could be 40-man problems but there just aren't that many indispensables on the 40-man -- we could later have some regrets about a DFA or trade but that is part of the risk of baseball. You have to be able to rely upon your talent evaluators.)

Why would anyone feel totally comfortable that all's okay -- even with what Dr. Andrews says? There have been too many cases in the past where they simply can't tell exactly what is going on. But even if he is 100%, I doubt that Sano would be the 3B man on opening day 2014. I hope he comes out and wows in ST but I just can't see putting all the 3B eggs in the Sano basket at this point in time. I'm not a huge Trevor Plouffe fan but at least he should be serviceable for a few months.

As always, thanks for the chuckle, Brad. I'm not particularly upset by this signing -- more frustrated and resigned, I think. I'm still frustrated that they didn't negotiate a 1 year plus 1 year option last year and that it's 2 full years this time. And I'll be more frustrated when I have to watch him pitch -- I guess I'll just make it a point not to watch on those nights or make darn sure I'm doing something else that occupies 90% of my attention. It just seems that Boras gets a bit of the edge -- seems to convince the Twins that there is a lot of other interest when that may not be true.