tobi0040
-
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
-
I too think he has more value than most speculate.
-
Nightengale: Twins Interviewing Doug Mientkiewicz Today
tobi0040 replied to Parker Hageman's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Seth, any idea how those two internal guys view modern analystics, platooning, 3rd catchers, defensive shifting? Like I said, my meaningless vote can be swayed. -
True, but they are a contending team so I don't know that they will hand a spot on that talented team next year to Cingrani after the injuries.
-
I generally agree but I can't write off Walker as a non-stud. He has 30 HR potential and I agree he has a long way to go but he did improve some with his OBP this year.
-
Nightengale: Twins Interviewing Doug Mientkiewicz Today
tobi0040 replied to Parker Hageman's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Funny. My preference would be Molitor but whichever is more of a proponent of modern analytics and platooning would swing my meaningless vote. -
I really don't see it. If we can get someone to take the contract then yes. But if we were the high bidder before the awful year, why would someone take the rest of it? I don't see TR paying him to play somewhere else and I think that is the only way. Maybe a bad contract swap, but that would be payroll neutral then.
-
This is not an exact science, I will give you that. But I would not get too carried away with the fact that we are using third party estimates or projections for two reasons: -We are certainly closer 35% than 52%. That I assure you. The point is we are nowhere near the mark. -payroll is almost entirely set at the beginning of the year, whereas an underperforming team that falls short on the revenue side is a product of the on the field team to an extent. The Twins has third party estimates of $215M in revenue last year. So they would have had to forecast a drop all the way to $153M with an all star game to be at 52% this year.
-
Cingrani could actually happen. I have it on good authority TR was trying to get him instead of Meyer in the Span deal. That was before he was hurt all year and the Reds have a huge log jam in the rotation.
-
No doubt he would help our defense, but if Buxton is up this year he can't play a corner. I don't see the long term potential to justify even taking reps from Schafer or Hicks.
-
Unfortunately, the quote has been "rotation depth". That does not sound like what needs to happen, sign one guy that is better than the other five. Get a 4-6 year deal and jump-start this thing.
-
Going off the MLBtraderumors piece....they have us at $60M with 6 guys. Of the arbitration guys, I think you have Plouffe, Milone, Schafer, and Swarzak back (least confident about Swarzak). They have those guys projected at $10M. I think the only lock is that we add a LF for $5-7M. Add another 15 guys making the minimum you have a total of $81M or so. I think the high number is about $90-92M if we add another starter but I don't see it.
-
I think Sano needs every shot at 3B as that is where his value is the highest. He is a big guy but has a cannon, so hopefully some footwork with new coach Molitor (prediction) can help. But we need clarity there before you move Plouffe, he is a darn good 3B at a thin position. You would hate to move him and then need to find a 3B because Sano does not move out. If you get absolutely blown away AND you think it is an 80%+ chance Sano sticks, then maybe you take a calculated risk.
-
Got it, but if you can field a AAA team and still win 60-65 games by the nature of the sport, then you have a good chunk of winning that can't be explained by much of anything. Versus say basketball where the worst team will go 15-67, or football where the worst team will go 2-14.
-
If I understand the 17% as 17% more wins....and I have not had time to read the study. That is extremely significant. About every team will land between 66 and 95 wins most years. So a team that is 80-84 is now a 96 win team going to the playoffs with an additional 17%.
-
I agree with you. But the context of the conversation was 52% of payroll and the fact that the Twins were at 35%. The point was made that the additonal spending would not cause more wins. It was outside of the scope of the Twins being a rebuilding team, but the issue for me is the Twins never said they were rebuilding and a rebuilding team doesn't do many of the thing the Twins have done. Pelfrey, Correia, play guys out of position, Morales, Kubel, Bartlett, etc.
-
Here is the actual quote, bolded for your convenience. It was this post that got me and others down the path of a correation existing betwen payroll and wins. . diehardtwinsfan, on 01 Oct 2014 - 5:06 PM, said: I think this right here is the rub for me. Higher payroll doesn't cause more wins. The Twins went out and spent 48M on Nolasco, 24M on Hughes, and 12M on Pelfrey. The first two were pretty much universally lauded on these boards. Which one was better? They also already had money tied up in KC and Hammer that they weren't just going to burn. They got rid of KC and Hammer, and the team improved. They spent big money on Morales, and that got them nothing. They got rid of him and called up Vargas, and the team improved.It's easy to look back an the FA market in hindsight and say 'you should have signed player X', but the reality is that with the exception of the top tier FAs, most of the others carry with them a pretty significant chunk of risk tied to that cash.
-
I view the one game is a play in game, with the winner advancing to the playoffs. The two teams being talked about lost the play in game. I also don't think throwing in two teams in the 25-30 range and then saying the average is about 15, therefore no correlation exists is not the proper way to evaluate. The median tells the story, even with those two. 8 of the 10 teams are top 15. That is a correlation. 5 or whatever are top 9. The Twins made the playoffs several times, only to be out-gunned in round one over and over. So if you look at who is actually winning it is more convincing. You have to go back to 2003 to find a world series champ that was not in the top 15 payrolls. In additon, salaries are lagging to an extent. Teams that win see payroll go up or have to get rid of guys. The Phillies and Giants for example saw payroll go up after their titltes. The Marlins had to dismantle. Others saw a combination. 13 - Sox (4) 12 - Giants (8) 11 - Cards (11) 10- Giants (10) 09 - Yanks (1) 08 - Phillies (12) 07 - Sox (2) 06 - Cards (10) 05 W Sox (13) 04 - Sox (2) 03 - Marlins (26)
-
They have an owner any city would appreciate. He is old and desperately wants to win and is ok losing money in the process. We know that was not part of carls plan.
-
It would appear a strong correlation exists this year. Dodgers (1) Tigers (5) Angels (6) Giants (7). Up 8 to 0 Nats (9) Cards (13) Orioles (15) Royals (19) http://deadspin.com/2014-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1551868969
-
No absolutes but a correlation does exist between payroll and wins. An example here or there does not make the reality false. Had we signed four nolasco's last year (30 additional million) all four would not have failed. Two or three would have resembled the 4.30 era guy we thought we were getting and we would have won more games
-
maybe you have some year over year shifts. Maybe smaller or bigger than normal expenses in a certain category. But the point remains. You could adjust the Forbes revenue number down 10 percent (20 million) and payroll would still be short about 20 million from the twins stated number. I don't think sound financial analysis is required nor should a poster be required to explain what they think the twins policy should be regarding rollover costs. This is noise. Absolutely nothing wrong with holding them accountable to their own statements
-
It could be documented quite easily that far more money has been left on the table than overspent. In 2010 we went up to 110M I believe, which was 51% of revenue. No overages here.
-
The fact that the number can shift a little year over year does not mean that payroll at 35% is OK, when they said it would be at 50-52%. Or they said it would remain above 95M and it hasn't. If they acknowledged a rebuild that is another thing, but they never verbally said it or frankly acted like it.
-
They are going to have a tough time selling tickets because the year prior they were bad in part because they had payroll at 35%. If payroll was at 50% this year, they would have had another $30M in payroll and happier fans.
-
The maddening thing is that I believe if the Twins communicated a rebuild in 2011/2012 people would not be so irritated. And we would not need to be appeased by signings like Pelfrey, which would have also helped the future
