Thanks for the reasoned assessment.

Long term, any investment of innings into Meyer, Gibson or any of the three under team control out of options guys will help in future years. What's is this year's cost (in wins) risk in giving them starts over Correia or even Pelfrey?

A "ballpark" estimate eh? No pun intended. Well it seems that the money didn't really get us anything. Strange. I wonder when management will go out and spending some real money to get some fresh talent again. I think we've got first round this year which will help. According to the editor at http://minnesota-twins-store.cooplocale.com, the twins haven't made decent investments in awhile. Looks like this assessment is in line with that thinking.

I am on record as predicting 75-77 wins for the club this year, but I think anything over 70 and 2014 will be a success in Twins Territory. I'm more concerned about young players developing, maturing and finding their groove at the big league level.

Great article! Pythagoras and the Twins. teflon twins and pythagoras. pythagoras and teflon twins. I like how it all projects! Well, kind of, in the sense that it is not a 60 win season. I enjoyed the read a lot.

I am increasingly amazed that it is erroneously stated that the twins "uncharacteristically spent a real chunk of money in the off season". The payroll, as it stands right now, is virtually the same as last year. They didn't actually spend a real chunk of money! Have they really fooled so many astute observers? If they would have taken the payroll up to 100 million or more, THEN they would have brought the payroll up to where it should be. If they would have raised the payroll to what is has been before, without additional chunk of MLB TV money, and up to around 110 million........ THEN they would have uncharacteristically spent a real chunk of money in the off season. As it is, Terry Ryan has loaded the pitching staff with high hopes, and dreams with potential. The smoke screen is in effect, and apparently working for the front office. Now it may happen, that is true. And the team may hit. That is true, too. But let it stop, please, let it stop........ this dogma that the Twins have spent a real chunk of money.

The Twins bought, potentially, about 270 or 9 seasons worth of starts this off season. They have spread them out over 4 seasons with 3 pitchers, Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey. I don't expect the Twins to get anywhere near 270 starts out of these 3 guys and ideally at least 2 of them will be replaced by better young emerging talent before they make all their starts. Assuming they all stay healthy, which they likely won't.

I think I expect that if the Twins get 150 to 180 starts out of these guys, that would be pretty good. Especially if the reason they are replaced is that the Twins have better options rather than total ineffectiveness.

This year I would just like the 3 of them to be healthy and for all 3 to pitch in the range of a mid-rotation starter, which is pretty much their upside anyway. If that happens, well the sky isn't the limit, but the Twins could have a pretty good year. There will still be room for young guys like Meyer and May, if they show they are ready. Decent pitching might allow some of the young hitters to develop without the need to try to hit 5 run home runs.

It is really hard to guess what the offense will do this year. There are so many youngish guys who haven't quite shown themselves to be big regulars yet, but still might. There is the very young talent that might start arriving this year, but may or may not be ready to really help yet. I am fairly optomistic about this team, but what I want to really see is some progress.

I am increasingly amazed that it is erroneously stated that the twins "uncharacteristically spent a real chunk of money in the off season". The payroll, as it stands right now, is virtually the same as last year. They didn't actually spend a real chunk of money!

Good point. Last year's opening day obligation was $82 million and the Twins current 2014 obligation is currently around $76 million although that doesn't factor the returning ex-Twins Kubel, Bartlett, or Guerrier who signed minor league deals. The $22 million in salary they rid themselves of in jettisoning Morneau, Doumit, and Carroll was essentially redirected to Nolasco, Hughes, and Suzuki. To be more accurate, what's "uncharacteristic" is - not the money being spent in total - but the money being spent on free agents.

Of course this raises the question of what the Twins are actually planning on doing with the additional $25 million they received as their share of the renegotiated national TV deal with MLB, doesn't it? They could have gone harder in pursuit of a top-tier pitcher or major-league quality shortstop.

Of course this raises the question of what the Twins are actually planning on doing with the additional $25 million they received as their share of the renegotiated national TV deal with MLB, doesn't it? They could have gone harder in pursuit of a top-tier pitcher or major-league quality shortstop.

Exactly. So from this perspective, it appears that if they dedicate half of the TV money to salary, (and of course pocket the other half like they have been doing with the salary money the last two years.....), they are still say 20 million plus 12.5 million (32.5 million!) short of spending money on salary that they should. That is pretty characteristic of what they usually do, and the team is left with 2,3, and 4 years of mediocre starting arms.

Good point. Last year's opening day obligation was $82 million and the Twins current 2014 obligation is currently around $76 million although that doesn't factor the returning ex-Twins Kubel' date=' Bartlett, or Guerrier who signed minor league deals. The $22 million in salary they rid themselves of in jettisoning Morneau, Doumit, and Carroll was essentially redirected to Nolasco, Hughes, and Suzuki. To be more accurate, what's "uncharacteristic" is - not the money being spent in total - but the money being spent on free agents.

 

Of course this raises the question of what the Twins are actually planning on doing with the additional $25 million they received as their share of the renegotiated national TV deal with MLB, doesn't it? They could have gone harder in pursuit of a top-tier pitcher or major-league quality shortstop.[/quote']

 

I am not sure it is really 25 million.

 

I think the 25 million is the yearly average of the current deal compared to yearly average of the previous deal. Since the money increases every year, the last year of the previous deal in 2013 was the greatest amount and 2014 will be the least amount of the current deal. The difference in TV money from 2013 to 2014 is much less than 25 million and reportedly closer to 5-10 million.

 

from Kansas City Star

 

Most relevantly, there is no $25 million-per-team jump in revenues from 2013 to 2014. That figure (which doesn’t account for a share that MLB takes) comes from the average of the new contract compared to the average of the old contract. But the old deal increased every year, just like the new deal is scheduled to. The highest total of the old contract was last year, and the lowest total of the new contract is this year, so the raw increase from last year to this year is thought to be more like $5 million to $10 million, before MLB takes its share.

 

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/14/4823591/royals-break-even-claim-is-plausible.html#storylink=cpy