Major League Ready

I sure hope we have the problem of so many guys performing well that we don't have room for them all. Man, I would love to have that problem.

Good question, Johnny. The answer is we don’t have enough detail on revenue sources and expenses to calculate this accurately. We can calculate the POTENTIAL revenue impact from attendance. However, we have to make a rather large assumption in terms of the impact on attendance. How many more games would they have won with Grienke and Sanchez instead of Pelfrey/Correia? Is 10 a reasonable estimate? What is the effect of going from 96 losses to 86? Jack Groin might know. Assumptions and facts are as follows. The average ticket price in 2013 was $30.68. We would have had to pay substantially more than LAD/DET to sign them. $2M/each overpay seems reasonable so total cost of $39M. 43,000 seats total 2010 attendance = 3,223,640 2013 attendance = 2,477,644 40,000 in attendance for every home game = 3,280,000 Delta 2013 vs 2010 = 745,996 $39M/30.68=1,271,186 needed to cover salary via ticket sales. We can conclude that based on ticket sales it is not even remotely possible even if they got back to 2010 levels. My guess is that if we had a 500 team attendance might get back to somewhere around 1012 levels or roughly 300K additional fans. (pure guess) Let’s just round up and say attendance covers $10M of the $39M investment. Obviously they make money on concessions and other products. We don’t have the information to determine that amount. Riddle me this … There is one other gigantic hole in this analysis. What is it?

Mauer is not an exact parallel but this does not diminish the point that he was resigning with his existing team. This is the same misdirection that is common here. Is the point valid or not regardless of the Mauer reference? Viewing this from a payroll space perspective is a very parochial point of view. The capacity to purchase and the wisdom of said investment are two quite different things. There is not a GM in baseball that would have give 60 seconds of consideration to Grienke if they were given a combination of the Twins revenue and a rebuilding state. We should not be disappointed that fans are disappointed as a result of a fanatical perspective. So, for once, someone give just one example of any team in the last 15 years that has signed the elite FA starting pitcher on the market to a 5+ year contract during a rebuild phase. Heck, give me an example of one for a contending team with equivalent revenues to the Twins. Let's qualify equivalent as 10% more than the Twins and to include anything below that revenue threshold. There should be a few examples if it is an even semi-reasonable expectation.

DHTF, I think there are a couple things that create the discontent with the front office. However, the two most prevalent are failure to recognize the competitive Landscape for FAs and the concept of rebuilding and how long-term contracts put that process at risk. Let’s go back to last year. People were mad that we did not get one of the top three. (Grienke, Sanchez, or Jackson). Every team wanted Grienke and Sanchez. The situation with Sanchez was very simple. He wanted to stay where he was and his team offered market rate. It’s kind of like Mauer who every team would have loved to have. What kind of response would a fan from another team have gotten if they suggested their team should have ended up with Mauer. To complain about not getting Sanchez requires that we ignore the surrounding circumstances. Complaining about not getting Grienke requires that one buries their head very deeply in the sand called economics. The Dodgers had just signed a TV deal that would net them $6B after revenue sharing or somewhere north of $250M/yr. The Twins new contract provides $29M/yr. In more general terms, the top 6-8 teams have landed the top FAs. People hoping or expecting something different is simply a product of love for their team. We better come to accept it because the landscape is changing in a way that will widen the gap. Of course, LAA signed a $150M/yr deal 2 years ago which matches the Rangers deal and Seattle just inked a deal that provides somewhere around $115M/yr. The Phillies are next in line for a huge TV contract. Of course, The Yankees are the Dodgers equals in terms of revenue and Boston is not far behind. The second theory has been covered several times. It would not matter what any of us write on this topic. Those who cling to this premise are not going to change their position. The use of Boston as anecdotal evidence is a good example of how far knowledgeable baseball fans will bend their supporting logic. Those who argued the timing premise know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Red Sox and Twins of 2012 were not even remotely parallel situations but they supported trade scenarios and FA signings citing this example.

Absurd is hard to measure. If you can manage to ignore that 29 other teams also got an extra $25M, and if you presume this is every free agents 1st choice, then, I guess it is a perfectly reasonable expectation. It also helps if you ignore Seattle just got a $2B TV contract, the Angels have a $150M/yr contract and the LAD have a $250M/yr contract and we have not talked about Boston or New York. It is also December 14th. So, to suggest the 2014 payroll is below 2013 would be quite premature. For god sake, we are a week removed from the two largest FA signings in the teams history.

What does any of this have to do with objectivity and ignoring Joe Mauer's contract while making a point of Kirby's contract. And, given we are talking about willingness to make large FA committments, Kirby's 3 year deal was not even remotely in the same leauge as Mauer's 8 year deal, yet Mauer's deal was ignored while Kirby's contract was highlighted as proof of a great willongness to spend in the past. The rest of the supporting facts make no sense in the context either. You are using increased revenue in 2014 to justify a decision that was made in 2010. Increases in leauge revenues are not relevent to comparing contracts to to Kirby and Mauer. The Twins don't pay players with leauge revenues. They utilize their own revenue so a meaningful measure would be to compare the Twins 1989 revenue to present. Unless present revenue is great than a 766% increase, the twins do not have increased capacity in relative terms.Even this measure is not all that relevent, at least not in itself. It probably makes more sense to look at percentage of payroll budget as well as the delta in revenue growth between the top markets and the twins. Mauer's contract was about 20% of payroll in 2010. Kirby's was 18.6% of 1990 and 13.7% in 1991.

This is yet another example of completely ignoring the point. As stated previously, some have pointed to Kirby’s deal as proof that the Twins were able to pull-off large free agents deals prior to the Terry Ryan era. For starters, it is quite different to retain a FA as compared to signing one on the open market. In addition, Mauer’s deal was also for 8/184 taking him through age 35. Kirby’s deal was 3/$9m through age 31. If you know the team’s history this well, how on earth do you not recognize Joe Mauer’s deal when making this point. Plus, Mauer’s deal was far and away a much bigger commitment even in price adjusted terms given the number of years. In keeping with the theme of this thread, even the most obvious examples are ignored when FANS have a point of view. The 7.66X was offered only to put the deal in relative terms. Obviously, ticket prices have gone up since 1989. Have they gone up enough that Mauer’s contracts is less of a financial burden? I doubt it. I could not find the average ticket price in 1989 but the average ticket price was 31.49 when Target field opened. In relative terms the average ticket price would have had to have been less than $4.11 to explain an increased capacity to spend. (31.49/7.66=$4.11.) I would guess the average ticket price has gone up by 3-4X.

I think people need to put in perspective that until 2010, the Twins were a small market team. Revenues were just slightly above TB, OAK, and KC. So, it makes no sense to complain about the Twins no spending in the past. It also makes no sense to draw comparisons to Kirby’s contract and ask why we could award the largest contract at that time. The financial metrics are very different today. And, the same people who use this argument somehow fail to recognize the Twins signed Joe Mauer to a much longer term deal @ $23M/yr or 7.66X Kirby's annual amount. The bottom line is the Twins have generally spent the available budget on talent. We have had one year (last year) where TR opted to not spend on the available talent. He was crucified here any many went off on how much better Marcum, Dempsey, Saunders, Jackson, etc would have been. Well, who was right? People still cursed the not spending even after it was proven that those acquisitions would have been detrimental to the team. Many seemed to completely ignore this fact. Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan. For some, there is a spend every available penny no matter what edict. Given we are talking about long-term contracts, that is a very ill-conceived strategy. IMO, this is the root of much of the discontent.

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to agree. Offer an agressive 2 year deal w/3rd year team option. We have Correia/Willingham and Doumit coming off the books next year. So, we could still pursue a front of the rotation next year when there should be a better crop of SPs.

Going 5 years for a 30 y/o #3 SP is not a very good idea for a contender and it is very bad idea for a rebuilding club. Hold on to the payroll flexibility and sign a true top of the rotation guy next year when Correia departs. I agree Pelfrey for 2 years would be preferable to Arroyo for 3. Pass if it takes 3 years for Arroyo.

They could have traded Gordon instead. If Span brought Meyers in trade, Gordon should have brought an even better font of the rotation starter. The net financial implication is roughly $20M year. They could have used those funds on a front of the rotation FA SP. Perhaps Shields himself on an extension. (much higher probability) It would have delayed their contention for a couple years but their window would have been wider. They would also gain whatever they got for Gordon in this Scenario. I can't imagine them making the playoffs this year if they don't retain Sanatana. Shields will be gone and they will have expended an extremely value asset in Myers.

I was on the fence with my weight equally distributed until I read this post. I also share DieHardTwinsFan’s opinion on the pick. Yes, we have not landed a great players with similar picks but you can’t just look at our history. There have been many good players drafted in similar positions including Taijuan Walker. He was the 43rd pick. There are a lot of goods points on this thread in favor and against. I had to think it over for awhile but for me it comes down to objectives. Drew is definitely an upgrade at the moment. He would help getting us back to around 500 but he is not part of the next contender. We would be selling low. Even if we keep Florimon, we prohibit the growth that could provide much greater value. The draft pick also has the potential to be very valuable to future contention. The odds on both are pretty long but given the best case scenario for the alternative is respectability, I think I like the idea of retaining this potential. My vote is wait a year and use the $12M we would have spent on Drew + another 10-12M for a true front of the rotation starter.

At some point it becomes a meaningless exercise to supply a logical argument. This thread was not based on a reasonable assumptions or a reasonable assessment. Exactly 7 days prior to posting this thread, you posted a thread with the exact opposite assessment. The difference being one was intended to support the signing of Ellsbury. The other support for trading for Hamels or Lee. So, don’t be surprised if some of us quit supply a logical argument. What is the point. The conclusion or recommendation in both cases was not a product of analysis. The analysis was a product of the conclusion. Many have argued her that these types of moves do not make sense for a rebuilding team. So, you have switched tactics to supporting this acquisition and in doing so have pushed the assumptions and therefore the conclusion to the ridiculous. Positioning Boston’s turnaround as evidence the Twins could do the same was just additional irrational logic. The two teams are in absolutely completely different positions. There is no doubt you know this but resort to using the argument anyway. The case you have stated here is very similar to what one can only imagine was Moore’s thinking in the Meyers/Shields trade. However, if that move was 1-2 years premature, this type or move for the Twins would be 2-3 years premature.

Does Florimon become a utility player or does he have trade value given his salary and the lack of FA SS?

I agree. This is core concept in understanding the financial implications and requirements of building a winning team in a small or mid-market. It is a core concept to “moneyball” and it is core to the philosophies/practices that have allowed the As and Rays to compete with a fraction of the payroll of large market teams. The Yankees and Dodgers can spend roughly $9M a player for the players on their 25 man roster assuming the remainder of the 40 man are minor league contracts which of course is not likely to be 100% accurate. Under the same terms, the Twins can spend around half that number. The As and Rays can spend 1/3 that number. You better believe what you have labeled here as “surplus value” is really important if you want to compete with the teams with a substantial financial advantage. This basic premise is also the root of many fan’s frustration. For many fans, team spending is monopoly money. They do not want to hear about spending restrictions, risk mitigation, or any other concept that is an obstacle to the team acquiring the talent we would all love to have. The problem is that the people making the decisions are responsible for real money and the people who have earned the trust that goes with that responsibility invest 20, 30 or a hundred million dollars very carefully. The sentiment seen here of what the heck, spending it is better than the team owners profiting is not justification for poor investment, at least not for the people responsible for the expenditure and the people who pay their salaries.

I wonder if they are willing to DFA Hendricks, Albers, and Diamond while taking whatever they can get. Does not seem like TR. Could it be they have something already in place to move one or more of the above for prospects that are a couple years away. That seems like a viable scenario. There must be something else going on. It should be an interesting couple of weeks. Man, I hope they don't give Arroyo 3 years.

I wondered the same thing.

Do you think the Twins scenario is even remotely the same as the scenario in Boston? It seems to me you have chosen to argue a point based on a situation you are very well aware is not parallel and is not representative. Giving up top prospects for Price at this point would make the Will Meyers trade look genius in comparison.

I looked them up on the Padres site and I have to say they are attractive targets. Not sure what it would take but it would be great to add AA pitching talent of this caliber to our system.

This is a really attractive tactic on the surface. Part of me really likes the potential. However, I have to believe rolling FAs is a tactic that will not ingriate the the twins to future FAs. I know this notion is often dismissed but players don't like their life upset when there is nothing in it for them. And, the door swings both ways in terms of value. What if we had signed Upton last year after trading Span and Revere. Who would give us anything to take on that contract right now. Willingham and even Doumit are examples too. You can say we could have trade high on Willingham but trading 1/2 way through the 1st of a 3 year deal would send a very bad signal to future FAs. That says we are signing you to flip you.

I was thinking Hart too but is he still mobile enough for the OF? If so, he could also back-up Mauer at first and DH if we move Willingham.

I am not so sure an extension changes the value proposition here. If he signs as extension, he is going to demand the going rate (or close) or he likely just holds out for two years. Who here would opt to sign him for another 3 years at roughly $20M/yr it would take, given his inability to stay healthy. His addition would take up most of the available budget (2016-18) until Mauer's contract is up is up at the end of 2018.

So would the Yankees. Dozier is 4 years younger with 5 years of team control. As players I would say they are roughly equal but Dozier could still get quite a bit better. It would not be surprising if he had 20 bombs and improved his OBP.

I thought this was common knowledge but I guess not. I can't believe how much love this type of move gets on this board. When do you ever see a team that is 2-4 years away trade away top prospects for a guy with 2 years of control. And, for what, Price would make them a 500 team. It never happens. That should be a pretty clear indication if the wisdom of such a trade.

This is just speculation but I think TR was trying to disarm the reporters in terms of them jumping on bad a year Hughes had last year. I say this because he prefaced the conversation with something to the effect that Phil had a bad year but went on to talk about the great things that he had done and even mention that he is a physical specimen. Actually he said he was 6'5 / 240. He was trying to build him up but this type of thing is not TRs strength. He had the right idea but the delivery was not great. Where them not speaking prior is concerned. Hughes is also pretty resevered and perhaps even introverted. It may have been his preference to let his agent do the talking. It could be that they feel Anthony has very good negiotiating skills so they are giving him a shot after having difficulty in getting FAs to come here.