Article: An Updated Look At Twins Payroll

[DaveW]

 

Payroll numbers are good to see, but they do not really mean that much.   As a matter of fact, I'd rather see them have Burdi and/or Chargois than Fien in their pen for considerable savings and for better results.  And I'd rather see them have Melotakis or Rogers than Bastardo for considerable savings and for better results.

 

On the other hand, I'd love it had they added someone like Chapman or Heyward or Price.

 

you can have an $100 million payroll with 25 players at $4 million each or with 3 superstar players at $20 million each, supplemented with 3-4 good veterans at 10 million each and cheap good young players.   The second way is way more effective in my book than targeting mediocrity just to say that you spent $.

I agree. The Twins are paying a lot of money to Milone+Hughes+Santana+Nolasco this year. Enough money where they could have signed almost any ACE in the game and still had enough left over to pay Santana as well.

Cueto+Santana+Gibson+Duffey+May would be a nice looking rotation right about now....

 

 

[amjgt]

I think the point here isn't that they could be spending $120M. An extra $12M doesn't move the needle that much. 

 

The point is they could be spending $150M. THAT moves the needle.

 

As stated above, Detroit was at $175M last year. Their revenue is a little higher than the Twins', but not that much higher. I know. I know. They've got an owner that really wants to win. There should be 29 other owners in that boat, but I guess having an owner committed to success is an aberration. 

 

 

[Loosey]

 

Good point.  How much the Twins spend relative to other teams is really the comparison we should all be concerned about.  Right now, it seems like the Twins are supporting a payroll of a team with no ambition for the playoffs, despite last year's team and a window of opportunity for a team with a lot of underpaid young talent.

An interesting stat to me (I'm not willing to do it) would be to see the Twins payroll as a percent of the leagues total payroll and see if they are gaining, staying the same or losing percentage shares of the total league players salaries.  In perfect world each team would be about 3.3%.  My guess is the Twins are under 2% of league total.

[KGB]

 

Payroll numbers are good to see, but they do not really mean that much.   As a matter of fact, I'd rather see them have Burdi and/or Chargois than Fien in their pen for considerable savings and for better results.  And I'd rather see them have Melotakis or Rogers than Bastardo for considerable savings and for better results.

 

On the other hand, I'd love it had they added someone like Chapman or Heyward or Price.

 

you can have an $100 million payroll with 25 players at $4 million each or with 3 superstar players at $20 million each, supplemented with 3-4 good veterans at 10 million each and cheap good young players.   The second way is way more effective in my book than targeting mediocrity just to say that you spent $.

Agree, they should be low on payroll with the young players they have in their system.  Instead of trying to spend an additional $15 million on the payroll, I hope they make a big splash in the international market this year.  Use that money to get more controllable assets in the system.

[BK432]

 

I think the point here isn't that they could be spending $120M. An extra $12M doesn't move the needle that much. 

 

The point is they could be spending $150M. THAT moves the needle.

 

As stated above, Detroit was at $175M last year. Their revenue is a little higher than the Twins', but not that much higher. I know. I know. They've got an owner that really wants to win. There should be 29 other owners in that boat, but I guess having an owner committed to success is an aberration. 

 

I don't disagree with this. I think they should have gone out and been in the running to sign a Heyward and make a Rosario or Plouffe trade (I'd veer Rosario, but that's me). By the way, I would still make a run at Justin Upton (I know, my line of thinking probably isn't agreed with by most). That would improve the OF offensively and defensively.

 

But at this point in FA, I don't see a lot of options that greatly improve the team. Signing 4 FAs "just because" that raise our payroll to $150M probably doesn't make much sense. I fail to see much of a road to improvement going that route. Signing middle of the road FAs is a path to having more Ricky Nolascos on the team in most cases.

[Vanimal46]

 

"I won't count Park's posting fee towards this year's payroll, because that works against my criticism that the Twins are cheap and have plenty of money to spend."

I wouldn't say that... But at least for me there is confusion on where the posting fee is applied to in the accounting books. Does it go to payroll? A completely separate category in the expense list?

In my last post on this thread, I saw that in 2012 the Rangers had a $120 million payroll, and that certainly should have been more considering they paid a $50+ million posting fee to acquire Darvish. So I'm not sure what's the right way to label the posting fee.... Payroll, or another expense that shouldn't count towards the payroll. 

[DaveW]

 

"I won't count Park's posting fee towards this year's payroll, because that works against my criticism that the Twins are cheap and have plenty of money to spend."

Nobody is saying that. Most people are saying that if you are going to add it to payroll it should be split up over 4 years, or if you wanna put it all on the 2016 payroll, then I guess the Twins are saving 4 million a year for the following 3 years? Regardless, even if you wanna put the whole amount of 2016 payroll the Twins still have plenty of money they could send.

[DaveW]

 

 

I don't disagree with this. I think they should have gone out and been in the running to sign a Heyward and make a Rosario or Plouffe trade (I'd veer Rosario, but that's me). By the way, I would still make a run at Justin Upton (I know, my line of thinking probably isn't agreed with by most). That would improve the OF offensively and defensively.

 

But at this point in FA, I don't see a lot of options that greatly improve the team. Signing 4 FAs "just because" that raise our payroll to $150M probably doesn't make much sense. I fail to see much of a road to improvement going that route. Signing middle of the road FAs is a path to having more Ricky Nolascos on the team in most cases.

Yeah, I have been a believer in signing IMPACT players in free agency and then trust in your system to:

1. Create additional impact players.

2. Fill in the holes with average to good players.

 

Spending money on #4 types like Nolasco, Hughes types or spending money on below average bats (Hunter) never made much sense to me seeing how the Twins system has plenty of guys who can give you similar results with saving a lot of coin.

 

Again, with the money they spent on Nolasco+Hughes+Milone they could have signed nearly any ace over the past 2 seasons.

[Winston Smith]

If want team payroll info:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

[goulik]

I think all the discussion about where the posting fees apply to annual payroll is a lot of gobbledygook. If your counting that, you have to look at international signings, draft signing bonuses, etc. Payroll is payroll. Overall budget is overall budget and NONE of us really want to know all those numbers. (Except maybe Jeremy)

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I think the point here isn't that they could be spending $120M. An extra $12M doesn't move the needle that much. 

 

The point is they could be spending $150M. THAT moves the needle.

 

As stated above, Detroit was at $175M last year. Their revenue is a little higher than the Twins', but not that much higher. I know. I know. They've got an owner that really wants to win. There should be 29 other owners in that boat, but I guess having an owner committed to success is an aberration. 

 

And for that 175M the Tigers got 74 wins, a last place finish in the Central, and were the second to worst team in the AL.  Of the top 10 teams in payroll to start last year, only 4 made the playoffs, where they combined to win 7 games out of 36 played.  Stop with the "higher payroll equals more wins" line of reasoning, it's just not the end-all-be-all of win determination it used to be.

[adorduan]

 

I agree. The Twins are paying a lot of money to Milone+Hughes+Santana+Nolasco this year. Enough money where they could have signed almost any ACE in the game and still had enough left over to pay Santana as well.

Cueto+Santana+Gibson+Duffey+May would be a nice looking rotation right about now....

Milone is making 4.5 million this year.  He's a bargain at that price

[Otwins]

 

Yup, the Tigers were at about $175 million last year. 

Yeah those tigers.  The ones that won the division three of the past four years

[DaveW]

And for that 175M the Tigers got 74 wins, a last place finish in the Central, and were the second to worst team in the AL. Of the top 10 teams in payroll to start last year, only 4 made the playoffs, where they combined to win 7 games out of 36 played. Stop with the "higher payroll equals more wins" line of reasoning, it's just not the end-all-be-all of win determination it used to be.

Tigers have gotten a helluva lot closer than the Twins in the last 10 years.

 

How has the Twins uber conservative approach worked again? One ALCS appearance since 91? Worst playoff results of ALL Minnesota pro sports teams in that time.

 

Not. good.

Edited January 19, 2016 by DaveW

[Bill Brown69]

I for one am fine with what they did this year. My hit or miss is going to come down the road when there are guys like Buxton, Sano, Rosario, May and Berrios to sign. I doubt they will be able to keep the whole band together for 8-10 years but I expect them to use some of the savings from these "low" payroll years to go above what they are comfortable with.

[GACbaseball]

I am glad we have stayed away from the humongous contracts for star players. Most of the time, by the end of the contract, they end up looking like Joe Mauer. Overpaid and blocking several players.

 

We have not been in the position to spend money on big name free agents. First of all, why would Cueto, or Heyward, or any other big name player come to the cellar-dweller Twins over the last few years? Sure, some of them like Greinke would be willing to follow the money, but that would mean winning bidding wars with teams like the Dodgers and Cubs, which we aren't going to do and SHOULDN'T do.

 

I prefer to avoid having massive albatross contracts for overpriced, aging veterans when we should be having the payroll flexibility to add the necessary veterans around an in-their-prime Sano and Buxton in a few years (and have enough money to keep them long-term)

[DaveW]

 

We have not been in the position to spend money on big name free agents. First of all, why would Cueto, or Heyward, or any other big name player come to the cellar-dweller Twins over the last few years? Sure, some of them like Greinke would be willing to follow the money,

 

Nearly every big named free agent will follow the money...

[Mike Sixel]

If they are in the bottom third of payroll forever.....then I wish them luck in being a consistent winner.

[GACbaseball]

Nearly every big named free agent will follow the money...

Obviously only a single example, but Hayward reportedly took less money to go to the Cubs. In my opinion, the Twins' offer would have to be substantially greater than the next best offer to land a free agent because of our contender status and market size. And right now, I don't think it is in the Twins best interest to pay someone like Hayward $20,000,000 for 10 years. I don't want a 34 year old Jason Heyward being the reason we can't sign a 29 year old Byron Buxton to a long term deal.

 

And if you think the Twins can afford all of these players and retain our own guys, then you are just not being realistic. Wishful? Yes. Realistic? No.

Edited January 19, 2016 by GACbaseball

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Tigers have gotten a helluva lot closer than the Twins in the last 10 years.

How has the Twins uber conservative approach worked again? One ALCS appearance since 91? Worst playoff results of ALL Minnesota pro sports teams in that time.

Not. good.

 

Sure, but I wasn't making a comparison of the Twins to the Tigers.  I was making a comparison of payroll, and it's correlation to postseason success; specifically, that there isn't any.  Here's the number of teams from the top 10 in payroll that made the playoffs in each of the last 10 years--2009 was the only year where more than half the field was comprised of teams from the top 10 payroll teams.

 

2015: 4

2014: 5

2013: 4

2012: 3

2011: 3

2010: 3

2009: 5

2008: 4

2007: 4

2006: 3

 

My only point is to stop treating payroll like some panacea to missing the playoffs, as its more likely you'll miss the playoffs with a top 10 payroll, than make it.

[USAFChief]

Sure, but I wasn't making a comparison of the Twins to the Tigers. I was making a comparison of payroll, and it's correlation to postseason success; specifically, that there isn't any. Here's the number of teams from the top 10 in payroll that made the playoffs in each of the last 10 years--2009 was the only year where more than half the field was comprised of teams from the top 10 payroll teams.

 

2015: 4

2014: 5

2013: 4

2012: 3

2011: 3

2010: 3

2009: 5

2008: 4

2007: 4

2006: 3

 

My only point is to stop treating payroll like some panacea to missing the playoffs, as its more likely you'll miss the playoffs with a top 10 payroll, than make it.

There were 8 playoff teams until 2012. So in fact, your numbers show that those top 33 percent of payrolls comprise more than 33 percent of the playoff field in every year except one. The top 33 percent have filled 43 percent of the playoff field, the bottom 67 percent just 57 percent.

 

What actually makes it MUCH more likely to miss the playoffs is being one of the bottom 67 percent of payroll.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

There were 8 playoff teams until 2012. So in fact, your numbers show that those top 33 percent of payrolls comprise more than 33 percent of the playoff field in every year except one. The top 33 percent have filled 43 percent of the playoff field, the bottom 67 percent just 57 percent.

What actually makes it MUCH more likely to miss the playoffs is being one of the bottom 67 percent of payroll.

 

Please read the whole post, and understand the point I'm making.  I never said you're more likely to make the playoffs with a lower payroll.  I said a higher payroll does not guarantee a playoff spot.  I then definitively proved that.  In 6 of 10 seasons since 2006, the majority of playoff teams were not in the top 10 of payroll, and the majority of teams in the top 10 for payroll did not make the playoffs.  In 3 of the other 4 years, 50% of the playoff teams were in the top 10 for payroll--in 2 of those years the majority of top 10 payroll teams still didn't make the playoffs, in the other 2, exactly 50% of the top 10 payroll teams made the playoffs.

 

I have never said that I don't think payroll makes it easier to make the playoffs.  It does.  But it guarantees nothing, and simply going out and spending will not ensure the Twins or any team make the playoffs.  The one year out of the past 10 that the Twins were in the top 10 for payroll, they finished with 99 losses and the second worst record in the league.  Payroll is not a silver bullet, and pretending otherwise is naive.

 

In the past 10 years, there have been 88 playoff teams, 38 of which were in the top 10 of payroll.  If those 33% of teams got 33% of the spots instead, that would be 29 spots, so being in the top 10 of payroll in reality only gets one more spot per year, so let's stop pretending spending obscene amounts of money drastically increases any team's odds of making the playoffs.

[Mike Sixel]

Who has EVER said a high payroll guarantees a playoff spot? What a straw man.

[Vanimal46]

 

I have never said that I don't think payroll makes it easier to make the playoffs.  It does.  But it guarantees nothing, and simply going out and spending will not ensure the Twins or any team make the playoffs.  The one year out of the past 10 that the Twins were in the top 10 for payroll, they finished with 99 losses and the second worst record in the league.  Payroll is not a silver bullet, and pretending otherwise is naive.

That one year where the Twins stepped up and had a top 10 payroll wasn't a result of spending obscene money on bad players. It was the result of losing both Mauer and Morneau for over half of the season... 

I also found an older article on the subject, and at least when it comes to World Series victories in the last 15 years, only 1 team in the bottom half of payroll ranking (maybe include KC for 2015 too, I didn't look it up) won a WS title. 

 

[DaveW]

 

And if you think the Twins can afford all of these players and retain our own guys, then you are just not being realistic. Wishful? Yes. Realistic? No.

Buxton+Sano+Rosario+Berrios etc aren't due a big pay day for the next 7-8 years or so. Signing a guy to a big 5 or 6 deal doesn't stop the Twins at all from retaining any of their current young core. It doesn't even preclude you from locking up Dozier and Gibson.

 

Remember, a lot of money comes off the books well before that anyways in the Mauer, Hughes, Santana, Nolasco (yuck) contracts.

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

Who has EVER said a high payroll guarantees a playoff spot? What a straw man.

Exactly nobody is saying that in the least. The argument that many are making is that instead of signing a bunch of below average to above average type players (Santana, Hunter, Nolasco, Hughes) to contracts, perhaps spend that money on one elite guy and one "above average guy" instead. Quality over quantity, etc etc.

 

As mentioned, for the same amount of payroll the Twins rotation this year could be: Cueto (or almost any other top ace pitcher), Santana, Gibson, Duffey, May (Berrios in the wings) That seems a lot better to me then the Santana, Gibson, Hughes, Duffey, Milone, (Nolasco in the wings) rotation we are tossing out this year.

[USAFChief]

Please read the whole post, and understand the point I'm making. I never said you're more likely to make the playoffs with a lower payroll. I said a higher payroll does not guarantee a playoff spot. I then definitively proved that. In 6 of 10 seasons since 2006, the majority of playoff teams were not in the top 10 of payroll, and the majority of teams in the top 10 for payroll did not make the playoffs. In 3 of the other 4 years, 50% of the playoff teams were in the top 10 for payroll--in 2 of those years the majority of top 10 payroll teams still didn't make the playoffs, in the other 2, exactly 50% of the top 10 payroll teams made the playoffs.

 

I have never said that I don't think payroll makes it easier to make the playoffs. It does. But it guarantees nothing, and simply going out and spending will not ensure the Twins or any team make the playoffs. The one year out of the past 10 that the Twins were in the top 10 for payroll, they finished with 99 losses and the second worst record in the league. Payroll is not a silver bullet, and pretending otherwise is naive.

 

In the past 10 years, there have been 88 playoff teams, 38 of which were in the top 10 of payroll. If those 33% of teams got 33% of the spots instead, that would be 29 spots, so being in the top 10 of payroll in reality only gets one more spot per year, so let's stop pretending spending obscene amounts of money drastically increases any team's odds of making the playoffs.

you specifically said there wasn't a correlation between payroll and postseason, which isn't true. There is a correlation. ..a fairly strong one.

[jay]

you specifically said there wasn't a correlation between payroll and postseason, which isn't true. There is a correlation. ..a fairly strong one.

That's not very true.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/relationship-between-spending-winning-remains-low/

 

And, hi.

[nicksaviking]

Buxton+Sano+Rosario+Berrios etc aren't due a big pay day for the next 7-8 years or so. Signing a guy to a big 5 or 6 deal doesn't stop the Twins at all from retaining any of their current young core. It doesn't even preclude you from locking up Dozier and Gibson.

 

Remember, a lot of money comes off the books well before that anyways in the Mauer, Hughes, Santana, Nolasco (yuck) contracts.

If the Twins wait 7-8 years to sign those guys, they're as good as gone, unless they aren't very good.

[Squirrel]

That's not very true.http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/relationship-between-spending-winning-remains-low/

And, hi.

Welcome back! Hope parenthood is agreeing with you!