Major League Ready

Because it does not matter if the thread is entitled "early judgment". That does not in anyway diminish how ill-conceived it is to evaluate the results of an effort / process that has just begun. Would you do this in a professional environment? Not unless you wanted to demonstrate incompetence.

Where is the link? Source?

I would like to see the team 15M or so under budget. Next year's FA class looks much better and we will be a year closer to contention. Take the dolars from expiring contracts + 15M and we have room to go after a front of the rotation starter without the question marks in this year's FAs. A long term deal makes more sense with several of the SPs that should be available next year.

Paulen said the same thing. I just did a poor job of repeating his point. I made his point with the example I posed earlier. 5 year contracts do not make sense for a rebuilding team. I asked in the previous post for examples of teams in a similar stage of rebuilding that signed the top available FA SPs to 5+ year deals. indignance Garza at 4 years + Johnson is a reasonable plan but if Johnson pitches like he did last year we are still in trouble. Garza alone is not going to make that much difference and it will be a long season unless a lot of other things go right. Garza, Orroyo, and Johnson would be a much better plan. Of course, that is very optimistic to believe we could land all three but we can hope. If the signing of top FA SPs is a good strategy, there should be plenty examples of where it has happened. I cant think of ONE. In other words, there is not a GM that would support this thinking. So, for all of you who are indignant about Ryan's reluctance to sign such players, let's see some examples. If this is very rare or even non-existent, what should we conclude. Are all of the GMs incompetent. Are they all just cheap?

The pick will be in the early 40s. If you look at the top prospects list on MLB, four of the top 15 fall right around that number. Four of the top 15 were international signings. Tiajuan Walker (43) Nick Castellanos (44) N. Syndergaard (38) Billy Hamilton (57) The draft pick is really an additional reason not to sign 5 year guys, especially the group were talking about getting 5 years. (with the exception of Tanaka/Garza) The benefit is that IF the guy performs we get to 500 or even maybe a little better. They MIGHT make a 2-3 game difference if they really perform the way you hope. For those couple of wins you take on the risk of them being dead weight in the last couple years of their contracts when we could possibly be contending. The opportunity cost is the $18M that you could have invested to should be much improved by the presence of Meyer, Buxton, Sano, Arcia, Dozier,Rosario and May. No, they might not all pan out but the odds are pretty good with that group and some others. Do you want the salary to add when these players are contributing or now to a team that is still a couple years a way?

Grant Paulsen from Baseball America was discussing the available FA pitchers on his radio show on MLB Radio yesterday. A caller asked if was worth it to give up a draft pick for this group of relatively weak and risky SPs. His answer was it depends on if you are contending or what point you are in a rebuild. He immediately followed that point with the Twins as an example of a team that should not be giving up draft picks at this point in a rebuild. If we go back over the past 10 years, will we find any examples of teams in the Twins position in terms of rebuilding that signed free agent SPs that required 5 year deals? Pitchers on the wrong side of 3 tend to decline. Obviously, some perform at a high level into their late 30s but the odds are low. On the other hand, what happens if you sign Jimenez to 5 years at 17-18M and he goes back to an ERA+ in the 70s like he was in 2011-2012 or even worse as he approaches 35 years of age. You’re not trading him even if you give him away.

I think the problem is that the benefit tends to be measured on what these players can do for us in the next couple years. Personally, I think we are asking the wrong questions. Here is why. IMO, there is no way this team contends even within our division unless and until the prospects have proven themselves and are making this club a winner. By this I mean that among the current group of Arcia/Dozier/Pinto/Hicks/Florimon/Pamelee/Plouffe and the future group headed by Buxton/Sano/Meyer/Rosario/May, and others who might surprise us along with the 2013#5 enough of them have to pan out to make us a contender or very close. Very best case scenario these prospects lift us to contention in 2016 but more likely 2017. So, free agent additions now make us respectable but not contenders. Therefore, I am not trading prospects right now. Buy 2-3 year FAs instead. I would much rather trade in 2016 or 2017 when we are in a much better position to determine the necessary pieces that put us in contention for several years. I am also not giving up draft picks that could provide a piece that would help toward the goal of contention. I recognize the 42-45th pick is not real likely to provide that type of player but it does not make sense to give it up for a slightly better team now. 5 year deals right now, especially with the SPs available this year put 2017 & 2018 at risk. No, we don’t need the money today but it is not a simple as putting incremental profit in the Pohlad's pockets. What some people appear to ignore is that if the player does not work out, we are stuck with that players (IE Blackburn) for the duration of the contract. The odds of that player not performing or being lost to injury go up significantly with more years, especially with SPs past 30. The difference is that these contracts are big enough to severely limit our ability to add a final piece when we actually have a team that could contend. I would much rather sign the best 2-3 year players I can get now and not risk that the players available today are performing at a level that brings us to contention in the final 2 years of their contracts. Far too many fail to jeopardize 2017 & 2018 for the sake of a few more wins for a roughly 500 team.

There are some problems with this analysis. The context of the discussion here is the viability of free agency and trades to turn around a team immediately. 2013 – Boston traded for Peavy mid season for a playoff run which is a very different set of circumstances. He had little to do with their post season success. He got pounded in his league championship series start. Dempster had a poor a year. The fact that he was on the roster when they won is hardly indicative of that acquisition contributing to their WS run. He was 8-9 for a dominant club with a 4.57 ERA. He pitched 3 innings in the post season with an ERA of 9. 2012 – Barry Zito had a WAR of .8. and an ERA of 4.15. He really sucked in 2013. He is actually a very good example of why you don’t want to sign long contract with free agent SPs. His cumulative WAR was 5.9 in 7 seasons for $126M. Yuk! Yet you use him as an example of success. 2011 - Carpenter was reclamation project after being out in 2003. Good move on the cardinals part but it does nothing to support the argument of signing the 5+ year guys to huge contracts. Westbrook pitched 116 innings with a K/9 of 5.11 with an ERA of 4.66. Jackson was a rental for a contending team. 2010 – Wellmeyer was a complete non-factor. It is silly to even include him. He was 3-5 with an ERA of 5.68 and WAR of -.8. He only pitched 58.2 innings. Zito has already been discussed. 2009 – Well, the Yankees can afford to buy a SP staff. They literally could buy an entire starting 5 and still have the Twins budget remaining to pay the remainder of the team. You also fail to consider that these teams are 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th in terms of revenue. That is going to allow them to approach free agency in a very different way as compared to the Twins or other mid market clubs.

I did not necessarily think you were proping up Hughes. If he wants a 1 year deal to build value, who cares? I would rather take a stab at Johnson or sign Burnett or Arroyo for 2 years. If it is 3-4 years, he is going to follow the money. If he signs a 3-year deal he will be young enough for one more shot at a big contract. However, as we know with SPs, they often go down to injury never to regain their past form. He takes the money if he decides to go for a 3-4 year deal and the Twins are going to be aggressive on this type of deal. The owner has given the OK and it simply makes sense from a business perspective. They are going to erode the fan base if they don't get quite a bit better.

1A & 1B Nolasco or Feldman - Be very agressive on a 3 yr deal or stretch to 4 if absolutely necessary. Then sign Kazmir to a 2 year deal. Maybe even 3 if our scouts are confident he is back. Then, sign Johnson to a one year deal at 7M + all boat load of incentives that would allow him to make another 8-10M if he pitched like he has in the past. Johan to a minor leauge deal. If they all pan out and Meyer is knocking at the door we can find a solution to that enviable problem. This should still leave enough money for Corey Hart. Might help the deal to have a clause in Johnson's contract that he recieves additional salary if he is traded. That would net a nice prospect if he bounced back.

Me too. I really don't even know why but I will go down with you if he tanks. I would love to see Nolasco, Feldman, and Kazmir. That might have even been possible if the damn TV money did not hit this year. If they got two of these three I would consider it a win. They could easily be able to afford Crain and Loney or Morales.

Very good points. I was thinking the same thing about the Sanchez comp. These guys are not really close yet they are asking for alot more. All that tells us for sure is that the agents are going to start out with crazy demands. We all knew the TV money would have this effect in terms of FA asking price. The question is ... are there a couple GMs that will go crazy (see lincecum)

I saw on MLB hot stove that Santana wants 5/100. Nolasco wants 5/80. Of course that does not mean they get it but it does provide an indication that the agents/players smell all that extra revenue entering the market.

It is going to take a few years before we will be in a position to exceed the 52% budget for a final piece or two but I could not agree more on spending when we can pinpoint the right final pieces. That might also include trading some of our prospects much like KC did with Shields. Of course, this is not a new concept. Detroit has been in that mode for the last 3 years. I sure hope our core develops and we are in that position by 2017.

You have a point. As a matter of fact, I agree and have advocated signing some players that will cost nearly twice as much as the Willingham contract. However, we should keep in mind that it was not long ago the Twins were among the lowest revenue teams. You can't compare their current spending ability historically. Let's see what they do this year.

Completely different topic. We were discussing the economic and finacial implications of the market. So, when you realize you don't really understand it, you go back to but you promised. Never mind what is smart. You promised me a shiny new FA.

Fans will show up if they win. Therefore, the best spending policies are those that promote this highest probability of putting a winning team on the field. We also should not complain about inability to win in the post season and then suggest they should appease the fans. Giving up draft picks or trading good prospects diminish the future for the sake a putting an average team on the field now. The odds of any of the trades an acqusitions suggested producing a team that can beat Detroit are remote. And they get even more remote if the goal is to go on and beat the Red Sox / Rangers / Athletics, and extremely remote to then beat the Dodgers or Cardinals.

You remember wrong. Revenue to expense ratio is a measure of efficiency which has very little to do with any of the points made earlier. The premise of all of the points was incremental dollars available to spend on Salary. That number is not and never would be published so I used revenue. We would have to have full access to team financial records to have the actual number which is much more a product of variable expense. In other words, how much of the additional $700M goes to expense and what would be available to salary. On the surface, you would assume that the teams with a decided revenue advantage would have an even higher percentage of total revenue available for salary or profit based on variable cost. Forbes numbers suggest there is variable cost or the additional is being paid to team owners. What variable costs do teams have? I am sure there are some expenses I am not aware of but any significant cost that would go up as revenue increases other than taxes if they don’t spend the money on players is not obvious without access to financials. What about fixed expense? Rent and salaries are obviously higher in NY or LA but this really a minor component of total expenses. Do the top teams spend significantly more on scouts, their minor league system, advertising, etc? Yet, when you look at Forbes, the ratios all look fairly similar. So, I am not sure what portion of the incremental $700M/yr is available for payroll. We can test this theory by looking at the 48% the Twins target for all non-player expense. $215M * .48 = $103.2M The Yankees have revenue of $479M. I am sure they have more cost than the Twins but are their non-player expenses really $229.9M? We could also ask what variable expense is associated with the new TV revenue.

I am not implying that the Twins position among mid market teams matters. There are other financial factors that have more influence than the Twins specific revenue rank. There is $40-50M delta between the Twins and the lowest revenue teams in the entire league. The difference between the Twins and the next 8 teams below them is less than $20. How many of those teams have resigned their star player to a $23M/yr contract. Are those teams signing the 5+ year 75-100M FA? The one team that has taken on some of these contracts is Toronto. They went for the quick fix. How did that turn out? There is a $250M differential between the Twins and the Yankees/Dodgers. Two teams are not enough to completely shape how the Twins and other similar teams spend. However, when the Dodgers or Yankees decide they want Sabathia, Grienke or Tanaka, the problem is not a cheap FO, it’s a very unrealistic fan base. The top 10 teams all have 20M+ more revenue than the Twins but that is not in itself tremendously impactful. It is the aggregate incremental revenue of the top 10 that has the most impact on free agency and how lower revenue teams have to construct a roster. After those ten teams spend an amount equal to the Twins revenue, they have another $700M in revenue. If you have had economics 101, it is really easy to figure the top free agents are going to consumed with that $700 most of the time.

There are number of reasons only a very small segment of skilled / educated professionals are entrusted with P&L responsibilty. Most of the reasons are a lot more complex than recognizing the downside risk of long-term contracts and why a rebuilding team that is close to have a very good core would not burden themselves with those risks right now. It is also not all that complicated to understand that a mid market team has to get more production per dollar spent. The implications of the salary imbalance in MLB are also core considerations GMs of small and mid market teams need to follow to the dismay of fans.

I never felt my MBA offered any proof I could run a large organization. And, looking back, the education was helpful but inconsequential in comparison to the actual experience. I am afraid we are just going to have to be two guys with MBAs who disagree.

Maybe if Billingsley was a 3rd addition. I would like to see a synopsis of SP performance the 1st year after TJ relative to their performance prior to TJ. We just made this mistake with Pelfrey. I realize he is a better pitcher than Pelfrey and you are advocating an option year but Hughes / Billingsley sounds like a slightly upgraded version of Pelfrey/Correia. Why would this be preferable to 3 year deals with two of Feldman / Nolasco / Kazmir? Maybe add Johnson to the mix as a 3rd option providing high upside. I would even prefer Burnett and Hughes.

Where did I ever suggest not spending the money? BTW, I am what some of you like to call a turnaround specialist so I have been a year or less away from losing my job for the last 20 years. It has never happened, not even close. Impatience, and subsequent risk taking is the surest way to really screw it up. Some of you do not consider or calculate risk. You are playing with Monopoly money. The people entrusted to manage the teams assets and profitability do not and absolutely should not think this way. There is a very long list of underperforming highly compensated players that demonstrate the risks. The surest way for the Twins, or any other team trying to compete with a fraction of the budget of the top markets, to prevent the retention and/or building a team around the core that is a year away is to get wrapped up in long-term deals right now. This is especially true with players who's hjistory suggests they are a risk from day one, much less in the final years.

The lack of starting pitching in the upper levels of the minor league system is a glaring hole in terms of contending. However, we need to be realistic. We are basically where KC was 3-4 years ago. There is no way this team competes with Detroit until and unless most of the group including Dozier/Arcia/Pinto/Sano/Buxton/Rosario. That is going to be 2016 best case scenario and probably 2017. Spending another 60-70M in free agency is not going to make us a contender until then. If you agree with this premise, I think the FA SP strategy should be a very aggressive approach with the best FA SPs that can be signed to 3 years or less. This will position us nicely from a budgetary position. We will be in a great position to add a top line FA starter in 2016 or 2017. We will also be positioned to utilize the Ray’s early extension strategy for some of our top prospects. This will help but Gibson and Meyer really need to reach their potential. There are a couple other guys who might contribute by then but the odds are longer on them. There are also other possibilities to produce a front of the rotation starter by 2017. I would expect an all out effort if this were the final piece in contending. For starters, we could get a college pitcher with the #5 pick that could be that guy. I could see the FO being more aggressive with an international signing if we were close to contending. Another option, given the depth of our system, might be to trade one of two of our current top prospects not named Buxton or Sano once they have become established for ML ready pitching. We should all pray for guys like Santana, Walker, Kepler, Polanco, etc reach their potential. They could be used as trade bait or replacements to our proven players. In either scenario, trading them could be the source of more pitching.