Otto von Ballpark

How well did this "rebuilding strategy" of little or no rotation depth contribute to the rebuild from 2012-2014? The Twins themselves tried to add an additional veteran starter (Garza or Ervin Santana) on a multi-year deal late this past offseason. Is it your position that much has changed since that point? There was some progress in 2014, but there are still a whole lot of question marks, covering virtually every member or prospective member of our 2015 rotation. Again, I'm not saying Buehrle is my first choice, but there aren't that many clearly better options available this offseason. It's quite possible that even if we are willing to spend, we might not land anyone (or we may not especially like anyone either). I'd prefer getting Buehrle in a salary dump deal rather than standing pat.

The video game perspective was the idea there would be an ordered list of prospects with a number attached, and increasing or decreasing the number would be the primary effect of these different approaches. Like I said, I don't think it's a major effect, but it's probably there and it's not necessarily a bad thing either. Think of it less like altering the trade, and more like altering a team's valuation of a player. If some team calls us about Eddie Rosario, I think that could/should alter TR's valuation of him, to some degree.

You're looking at it from a video game simulation perspective, which is problematic by itself, but there are a whole lot more outcomes that you're not considering. How about, if you call about trading for a minor leaguer, you're slightly less likely to actually land him than if the other team calls you? (Of course, once you factor in that the other team may not call you at all, it's probably a wash. But there are other ways to approach it too -- you can discuss other players before bringing up the guy you want, or you can discuss a player at the trading deadline and then revisit it later, etc.) Of course it varies too what kind of player you are calling about. Minor leaguers and less-heralded prospects are going to be affected by this much more than an established MLB player. For example, if the Twins called the Braves last winter about Gilmartin, maybe they don't simply give him up for Doumit, or at least not as quickly -- they had no pressing need to unload Gilmartin at that point, who required neither a 40-man roster spot nor much money, so any sign that he had more value to other teams might have caused them to re-evaluate. (Of course, the Twins could call the Braves about pitching help in general and find their way to Gilmartin indirectly... or more likely, they have Gilmartin and others on a list for every team which they reference whenever a trade inquiry comes in, and rarely target such players so precisely.) On the other hand, if it is the summer of 2001 and we call the Mets about Rick Reed, they're not going to hold out for more just because they didn't call us for Matt Lawton first. I'll admit, it's going to be a minor effect and perhaps undetectable given the multitude of other variables around trades, but given the lack of structure and many possible outcomes, I can't say there wouldn't be an effect. (A related approach and effect might be seen in teams that seek/offer lots of trades, versus teams that don't. TR's restrained approach might nab slightly higher returns and/or close deals quicker than a team that comes across as more reckless in its approach.)

Hey, I was just trying to construct a theory to support that tweet about Mientkiewicz getting the job. I don't necessarily subscribe to it.

For Maddon, or free agents -- I agree it's bunk. For player trades, I think it plays a part (although obviously a relatively minor one). It's a much less structured market.

I have no problem with TR's favors, except when they cost the team a potential asset.

Scott Diamond was also on the AAA roster. Why did we wait to do him a favor, given his position on the depth chart? Also, despite Worley's recent terribleness, he was younger than Johnson, Pino, and Diamond, with more MLB success too. Oh, and Johnson and Pino are both of the 40-man roster again, and minor league free agents, so it's not like there was much of long-term view there. "Older AAA depth in a rebuilding season" isn't what I consider a great value play. The interesting thing with Worley is, when he was on the roster, he had no value because his recent performances sucked and he was out of options. Hence no one claimed him on waivers. But once he cleared, he actually had some value again -- it was a free season to stash him at AAA or whatever, just like Parmelee. But instead of using that free season working to build his value beyond "potential AAA depth", the Twins immediately sold him. (I'd be curious for how much.)

That sort of proves my point -- Dickey was already very old, and he ultimately was let go by the Twins only AFTER his season here, when he would have required not only a 40-man roster spot all through the winter but I think also an arbitration offer and basically a guaranteed 25-man spot the next spring, when his performance to that point hadn't warranted it. I don't think anyone would have faulted the Twins if, after another mediocre 2014 in Rochester and/or Minnesota, Worley was let go following the season. Heck, I don't think anyone would fault the Twins much if Worley had been claimed on waivers back in March (well, I'm sure someone would have faulted them ). It was the selling him in March when they had him freely until October that was strange and irked us.

I would wager that turnarounds as quick as Worley's are pretty rare -- particularly when the player is 26 years old, earning league minimum, apparently healthy, and doesn't even require a 40-man roster spot for the whole season (as Worley didn't once he cleared waivers). Heck, at that point, had we simply kept in the minors a little longer than Pittsburgh did in 2014, he still wouldn't have been arb-eligible for 2015 either. How many players who get sold outright (for likely a nominal amount) post a ~1.5 WAR half-season for their new team only a few months later? I can't help but wonder, when St. Peter explained the Bartlett situation as "the manager wanted him", if the Twins didn't apply similar logic when casting aside Worley after just 19 starts despite a lot of flexibility to cheaply retain him longer.

Milone's an interesting option, but this line of thinking sounds too much like the thinking around Worley entering 2013 (and to a lesser extent Diamond that same year). Milone's had a bit longer track record, but it was in a very different environment, his upside seems low, and he's coming off a pretty poor finish to 2014 (which, even if due to injury, is cause for concern). Now, the simple fact that Milone wouldn't be the opening day starter in 2015 like Worley/Diamond were considering in 2013 suggests we'd be able to weather his failure better than the 2013 club, but that's a pretty low threshold for comparison, and it doesn't mean it's really good risk to take. I say, leave one spot for Milone/May/Meyer to open the season. If Milone looks good, and the top 4 above him (Hughes, Nolasco, Gibson, and new acquisition) are healthy and ready to go, let May/Meyer open in the pen (or perhaps even one of them in AAA to keep them stretched out to start, if necessary).

Probably not, and frankly I am not sure how entertaining Doug would be otherwise (occasional tantrum/ejection aside). But Molitor in particular seems like he could be a real bore (although yeah, if he can fire up the team and win, who cares). Entertainment was a primary factor in my Maddon interest, though. The manager who tweets!

2012-2013 too (AJ Burnett being the most notable).

Actually I found that nugget about TR's trade approach -- waiting for others to initiate talks -- fascinating. It's actually a pretty good (albeit obviously not aggressive) approach to trades -- when you inquire about a player or players, it does naturally follow that you lose a lot of leverage. If the Twins call the Nationals about Alex Meyer, the Nationals probably ask for the moon (and they probably did initially anyway); but if the Nationals call the Twins about Denard Span, and the Twins keep coming back to Alex Meyer in their discussions, it's a whole different situation. (The problem, naturally, is you need to have desirable assets to make this work, and even then you're operating more on other teams timelines.) It's a little more problematic when it comes to free agents, since there is an obvious defined market and time frame for them. Although he showed some signs of bucking that trend last winter. (Similarly, TR's pre-2008 approach to international players might best be described as "waiting out the market" given the results he got from it.)

That would be a surprise. The last interviews/meetings with Molitor and Lovullo were mainly to let them down gently? Part of me would be disappointed because Doug seems more old-school, but he also seems like he could be much more entertaining (than Molitor, at least) -- which is an overlooked factor in these discussions.

Hammel was traded to the A's this summer (although I think he is a FA and could probably be had fairly cheaply, given his Oakland performance).

More related thoughts: The Twins franchise history in inextricably entwined with payroll philosophy. From the self-sustaining Griffiths in Washington then Minnesota, to the Pohlad years in the Metrodome, to the near sales/moves/contractions, even now with TR's general approach to team-building. It's actually quite interesting how elements of that philosophy have persisted all through relocations, ownership changes, stadium constructions, and the dramatic modernization of the business of professional baseball. Also, I don't follow any team nearly as much as the Twins, but it seems like many Twins fans have an interesting frugality about them too. Sure there are posters here and elsewhere that want the team to "spend spend spend", but taking a step back, several of the founding members of Twins Daily, some of the most prominent and vocal Twins fans ever, are full endorsers of the conservative FA approach. And I think of someone like Aaron Gleeman, no stranger to criticizing the front office, and how often his positions are centered on value and optimizing resources. I mean, we have a thread going right now about basically acquiring Buehrle for a throwaway prospect, and a number of posters are against the idea because Buehrle's 1 year, $19 million deal, while short-term and easily affordable for this club, still seems sub-optimal to them.

The job seeker cold-calling a prospective employer is not the standard expectation here (unless perhaps the job seeker had a strong preference for this particular employer, i.e. home nearby or past professional history). Should Jon Lester be expected to call the Twins this offseason, just to inquire interest?

It was worth my price of admission! Seriously, it was a quality piece. In an informal chat, St. Peter seems like a fine guy, and you set a good tone (even if we didn't feed you the best questions ). I don't normally seek out podcasts/webcasts, but this was an entertaining listen, and I will definitely check out the next one. I'm not really obsessive about payroll, but there are some good baseball minds running this club and I don't like to see them hold themselves back in any area of talent acquisition, as compared to their peers. Even though the results weren't perfect, last winter was great in that we could finally debate how TR performed in free agency rather than why he didn't participate. I just hope that trend continues and it wasn't seen as special circumstances (due to our league-worst starting staff). Plus, I think it's interesting to examine the tendencies and practices of my favorite team. Whether it be their approach to finance -- why do observers consider the Twins perhaps the most consistently profitable MLB team? -- to TR's approach to trades (he generally waits to be called rather than initiate contact). Nothing beats the actual games but hey, we're coming up on a dry spell here...

Wonder if he could be of assistance to a certain Twins shortstop transitioning to centerfield?

I know. I don't really want "specifics" anyway -- my post upthread was just a post, not intended to be a question. ashburyjohn's phrasing above works perfectly for me. I'd change "Forbes" to "Forbes and Bloomberg" because they used some different methodologies, so it is interesting to me that they came up with a similar number (and makes it a little harder to simply respond that "Forbes is wrong" ). Journalistic-ly, I'd even reach out to Forbes and Bloomberg in advance to see if they'd be willing to share any more general detail behind their estimates (local vs national revenue, stadium vs media revenue, etc.). Would be interesting by itself, and it could also lead to interesting follow-ups. St. Peter may not be the guy to answer this question, though, at least not in any meaningful way. Thanks for taking question suggestions, though -- it's really awesome to participate like that! Next time I'll try better to contribute/re-phrase in the most journalistic way I can.

The context of that "comparable" is that the 2015 payroll will be comparable to the 2014 one -- and the 2014 got as high as $90-some million so there is a range for possible increases. It had nothing to do with league average.

Thanks, I didn't realize the podcast and video were different. Just listened, but I still don't think I heard anything specific about revenue and why it might be different than the Forbes estimate. He went into some tangent about the CBA and debt service.

Jason Marquis? Released outright after 7 starts. The Pavano and Pelfrey "implosions" were both injury related, and they went to the DL relatively quickly (1-2 months). Ramon Ortiz was dropped from the rotation after 10 starts and traded a couple months later. Livan Hernandez, Rick Reed, and Kevin Correia lasted longer, but all were dealt in early August of their "bad" seasons. The worst examples of this were Blackburn and Mays, but those guys were untradeable on multi-year deals. And none of these guys has nearly the track record (long- or short-term) or upside of Mark Buehrle. I get what you are saying -- I'd prefer a younger acquisition too -- but I'd easily take Buehrle before I stand pat, settle for Rich Harden, perhaps even before I'd settle for another Nolasco or Josh Johnson, or overpay in terms of prospects for a trade acquisition.

I'm not saying anything. I was responding to a post suggesting that the Twins and/or Maddon already knew it wasn't a good match.

I don't think they are lying/misleading either, but I still think they are working from a very different definitional foundation. Like back in the stadium debate days, I am pretty sure that "breaking even" and "making money" frequently became "losing money." It was nice to hear St. Peter clarify the definition of "player payroll" but in retrospect I suppose that should have been assumed, given the published nature of player salaries and context of those discussions. I'd be more interested in their definition of "revenue" in that equation. Does it fully include everything (local/team revenues, shared league revenues, possible revenue sharing)? Gross or net -- is anything deducted or depreciated off the top there, before they look at their 52% payroll target? Taxes? Construction costs? Loan interest/payments? Revenue sharing? They own their own radio station -- how does that figure in? I know for revenue sharing purposes, MLB won't let him shift or deduct things anymore, but for their own internal calculations and considerations, it's quite possible that the Twins do. Heck, just what IS their revenue? If 50-52% player payroll is standard and they've been meeting or exceeding that figure regularly, what's the harm in disclosing how the Bloomberg and Forbes revenue estimates are way off base? (Consider it a courtesy to the Bloomberg and Forbes folks. ) I know Bloomberg specifically contacted MLB teams for comment and information, and some responded -- did the Twins provide any? Maybe the estimates are wrong for this market? Maybe the Twins are under-performing the market from a revenue standpoint? I did post ashburyjohn's revenue question in the suggestion thread, but I don't think it was asked. Although perhaps it was and I couldn't hear his response after "three hits from the bong."