Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

tobi0040

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by tobi0040

  1. tobi0040
    It is fair to me, looking at 10 years of data to conclude the Twins are not a team that will ever lose money in a given year. If they didn't lose any money from 2006-2009 they certainly won't in Target field. 11 teams lost money last year and in each of the other few years I looked, 2-4 teams lost money. So let's just assume that over the last 10 years, 15 different teams lost money in a given year (conservative estimate) That tells me that we are somewhere in the other 15. If we are middle of the pack of the remaining 15.....we are in the 22-23 range overall. Given the fact that we made more money than all but five of the teams in 2 of the 3 years I looked......I am sticking with it. We are much closer to the conservative side of the spectrum. Edit: I found one site that lists it all off. Going back to 2005, 17 different teams have lost money in a given year. The formatting here is terrible so a few of the years you can't even see the operating income part. Given our typical healthy 15-25M a year in profit we are also more conservative than the teams in the 1-10M range. So I am not sure how you are concluding we are middle of the pack. http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=126
  2. tobi0040
    I don't think we are blocking any meaningful players by signing one starter and a LF next year. If we give Ervin 3-45 and Rasmus 3-24 or 3-27 we are not killing future payroll. Ervin becomes our best or second best pitcher and Rasmus improves our team defensively and offensively. Plus adds flexibility in the event we have another CF debacle and he is only 28.
  3. tobi0040
    I think a year from now we will know if the Santana and Pinto reservations were legit, or a silly Gardy thing. Regarding someone that said we should trade Pinto, all we have done over the last year is scream THIS GUY CANT CATCH. So his value can't be too high right now.
  4. tobi0040
    His OWAR was 1.5 and DWAR was -.5. I generally subscribe to the theory that if a guy can hack it in CF he can hack it in a corner. I also believe that a -.5 in CF would translate to about even in LF. He also only played in 104 games last year. So if you increase his 1.5 oWAR 60% (2.4) and give him a dWAR of 0, you have a nice 2.4 WAR player. The fact that he can play in CF is another fit for this team.
  5. tobi0040
    I think this team needs more talent. You don't block Sano or Buxton but the rest you look to upgrade. The cream always rises to the top. If Santana is going to be a career .319 hitter we will find a spot for him. I would add a Rasmus type and Ervin Santana. Going into the season with three veteran pitchers (Ervin, Hughes, and Nolasco) and three rookie/young guys (Gibson, Meyer, and May) is not too much pitching. The odds of all six being effective and healthy are extremely low and worst case, May goes to the pen for awhile. Not the end of the world. As far as what I think will happen, that is much different. I also agree that they are lowering the bar because they won't be signing anyone of value this off-season. They see the season ticket renewals and forecast a drop in revenue. Unfortunately they don't understand the connection between product and revenue, nor do they understand the lack of renewals also means the fan base has no confidence they will improve the team.
  6. tobi0040
    His numbers the last three years: 2012 - .689 OPS 23, HR, 21 2B 2013 - .840 OPS 22 HR, 26 2B in 118 games 2014 - .735 OPS 18 HR and 23 2B in 104 games The fact that he can play an almost even CF tells me he is probably an above average defensive LF. I would go 3-24 max, be great if we had an option or two on top of it.
  7. tobi0040
    I had to chuckle that you had to specifically call out "trained OF". God bless Ron Gardenhire.
  8. tobi0040
    Forbes is a reasonable third party and they calculate the other operating costs and a profit. The other 50% does not go right to the owners, but they are seeing their share of profits and have for some time.
  9. tobi0040
    I don't know how you go from platoon player halfway through the year to $12M a year on a multi-year deal. If someone wants to do that, more power to them.
  10. tobi0040
    If he even comes close to $12M on a multi year deal, the Twins should have no part of it.
  11. tobi0040
    Maybe. Looking at last year as a comp....he isn't going to sniff Choo, Ellsbury, Beltran, or Granderson money. Here is a list of players in the same OPS range (.750): Kelly Johnson .755 1 year, $3M Rajai Davis .697 OPS 2 years, $10M David Dejesus .769 OPS, 2 years, $10M Nate Mcclouth .742 OPS, .2 years, $10M Dave Murphy .768 OPS, 2 years, $12M Now I could not find a good comp as Rasmus is only 28 and these guys are in the 30-32 range. So I think he gets a little more annually and another year. I think he winds up with 3-21 or 3-24. Something in that range.
  12. tobi0040
    If they trade one of those guys and sign Bourjos for LF, I agree with you. But surely some medium ground exists, no? I do see a risk with some of the names, like Bourjos that the worry this year is the defense and next year "we need a better bat in the corners". Colby Rasmus is 28, has a career .750 OPS and a positive career dWAR. He is not going to cost too much. Plenty of ways to get creative and platoon LF as well.
  13. tobi0040
    Acquiring talent is not limited to re-signing your own players.
  14. tobi0040
    At the end of the day, if the Twins want take defense seriously, Arcia or Vargas will need to be traded and the other the DH.
  15. tobi0040
    I am not arguing that he did not play sporadically at the MLB level. Your initial argument was dismissive of his first 350 MLB at bats because he was a part time or bench player. My point was that while his MLB at bats were sporadic, he was seeing somewhat regular at bats in those years between the minors and big league clubs....therefore it was not like he was sitting on the bench for a week and playing once and rusty. He was seeing live pitches, etc. and I am not dismissive of almost half of his stats for that reason.
  16. tobi0040
    Here is 10 years. It is tough to find rankings based on operating income per year. But last year 11 teams lost money on a P and L basis in 2014 and the Twins were 6th in profit. As a sample, I looked at two others years. In 2006 five teams lost money and the Twins were 25th in profit. In 2009, two teams lost money and the Twins ranked 6th in profit. 2014 - 30M profit 2013 - 11M profit 2012 - 17M profit 2011 - 27M profit 2010 - 25M profit 2009 - 27M profit 2008 - 24M profit 2007 - 15M profit 2006 - 7M profit It seems fairly clear to me that the Twins are never going to lose money on this team and about 15 teams have lost money in at least one year over this stretch. Some teams like the Tigers, Yankees, and Dodgers have done so in multiple years. The Twins will never be in that group. So I don't see how we are middle of the road at all. Add in Jim's net worth is estimated at $1.1B, ranking him 9th among owners. Their Dad's fortune of around $3B would put them 2nd. It is really hard to conclude they are not on the conservative side of the spectrum. http://www.cnbc.com/id/46941774/page/3
  17. tobi0040
    His AB per year since 2011 combined between the minors and majors are 543, 282 (guessing he was hurt), 353, and 433. His reps this year were not much different than 2011 and 2013. Going back the difference of opinion, I don't think Escobar is at a point that we can count on him at SS, nor should he be preventing Santana from getting reps there, IMO.
  18. tobi0040
    According to Forbes, 11 teams lost money in 2013 while the Twins made $30M, 6th most in baseball. Not to mention that is a one year P and L that does not account for the franchise value increase from $288M in 2007 to $700M now (The Forbes number has them at over $600M, but estimates of the new cable deal pushed their value to $700M). While it is true that being rich is a pre-condition to owning an MLB team, by any measure the Twins owners are much closer to the conservative, frugal side of the spectrum. Would you agree? http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#page:1_sort:6_direction:asc_search:
  19. tobi0040
    I was going to look that up because many of the stadiums are very old, not everyone has a new stadium. The Dome was built in 1982, so the Twins have actually had two new stadiums in the time span other teams have been playing in the same one. I just refuse to buy the logic that we should be happy they got a new stadium and that was just to keep up and not fall behind.
  20. tobi0040
    Your comment suggested he was sitting on the bench. He was up here getting regular at bats or grtting them in the minors
  21. tobi0040
    Escobar has averaged about 3 plate appearances a game in every season. So when he has been up he sees somewhat regular action. I just can't look at these 440 at bats and say this is the guy and the other 350 can be dismissed.
  22. tobi0040
    It was the Parise and Suter signings that put us on the map and righted the ship. Parise has ties here but neither of those guys took a discount, both received 10 year deals (they were the top two rated guys on the free agent market that year). Minnesota has always had ties to tons of hockey players but nobody of any signficance come here until they made those investments That is an "if we build it they will come" philosophy that we don't see from the twins.
  23. tobi0040
    Great post overall, but I really enjoyed this part. The fact is you don't know before the year. Many people had Boston winning the east, nobody had the O's. Cincy is another team that was supposed to be up there and ended well below .500. The 2011 team was coming off 95 or 96 wins and returned the same team basically and won 65 games. I think this annual statement "if we are one player away and in a race" is really a micro-cosm of this ownership group. They care, but not enough to pull out their wallet in the face of uncertainty or with any risk associated with it at all. If they know we have a 50% shot at the playoffs, which means we will have attendance until game 162 they will pay the money. They are also saying, we will add good players, but only pay them in August and September. The worst part is they are working the phones and askng their fans to pony up $1,000 for the next full season and selling the hope....while they take the wait and see approach themselves.
  24. tobi0040
    Fair would probably be throwing out Hughes and Nolasco (high and low-ish and biggest $$$). I think you end with 8M for 1 WAR. Add in Kubel, Bartlett, and Guerrier and you probably have 0-1 WAR and 10M. Something about the initial analysis didn't seem right, 75% of the WAR was tied up in one of the six players. Meanwhile we owe Nolasco $33M the next three years and somehow Mike Pelfrey will ge a check for $6M next year.
  25. tobi0040
    Take out the outlier and you have 24m for 2 wins. Terry even acknowledged Hughes sought the twins out as much as we sought him out.
×
×
  • Create New...