BPro: Twins Are Not A "Small Market" Team

[jay]

I'm equally surprised we didn't see more action to address the bullpen though. Even Paulie said that in a Strib article in the last few days.

 

I'm holding out hope we see something yet, but really the difference between one more vet RP and whoever it ends up being instead is pretty marginal - not to mention the aspect of getting innings for the young RPs. Worst case would be some shaky vet - don't bother.

[tobi0040]

That's all good and fine, but inferring they didn't get that reliever due to being cheap or payroll concerns or hiding revenues is quite the same in the end.

What do you attribute It to? The pen was in the lowest quarter. Terry said it was the priority. And he did not sign anyone to a major league contract. we were not linked to anyone of significance.

 

We don't have a bunch of sure things knocking on the door. Certainly not enough to claim all the pen spots.

 

But he has never made a free agent pen signing of over 3m per year, or a 2 year deal.

[tobi0040]

I'm equally surprised we didn't see more action to address the bullpen though. Even Paulie said that in a Strib article in the last few days.

 

I'm holding out hope we see something yet, but really the difference between one more vet RP and whoever it ends up being instead is pretty marginal - not to mention the aspect of getting innings for the young RPs. Worst case would be some shaky vet - don't bother.

Holding out hope that Plouffe is moved for a really good reliever and a prospect. That would help me make sense of it

[USAFChief]

The revenue rank and the payroll rank more or less line up every year and pretty much have since the Twins got good again in 2001.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

 

An opinion that ignores 2014's $92, 2013's $82m, and basically every year in TF with the possible exception of 2011. And even that year barely made the 50 percent level, if that.

 

Give them a pass if you want. I will scream bloody murder until there aren't legitimate reasons to.

[jay]

That is an opinion, not a fact.

 

An opinion that ignores 2014's $92, 2013's $82m, and basically every year in TF with the possible exception of 2011. And even that year barely made the 50 percent level, if that.

 

Give them a pass if you want. I will scream bloody murder until there aren't legitimate reasons to.

It's not about a percent. It's about spending rank relative to revenue rank.

 

Opening day payroll rank since TF opened (2010-15)... 11, 9, 13, 22, 24 (increased by K Morales), 18. Average = 16.

 

Revenue ranks that I could easily find (per Forbes numbers)... 2012, 16. 2014, 22. Stated to typically be in the 16-20 range by DSP.

 

Sure looks like it lines up just fine to me.

[drjim]

That is an opinion, not a fact.

 

An opinion that ignores 2014's $92, 2013's $82m, and basically every year in TF with the possible exception of 2011. And even that year barely made the 50 percent level, if that.

 

Give them a pass if you want. I will scream bloody murder until there aren't legitimate reasons to.

Nope, pretty much a fact. I took the Twins rankings in revenue (via Forbes) and their ranking in payroll each year since 2009 and posted below.

 

2015: 18th in revenue, 18th in payroll

2014: 22nd revenue, 24th payroll

2013: 14th revenue, 22nd payroll

2012: 16th revenue, 13th payroll

2011: 13th revenue, 9th payroll

2010: 9th revenue, 11th payroll

2009: 24th revenue, 24th payroll

 

You are much too caught up in absolute numbers for the Twins that you are missing the bigger picture of what the Twins do relative to other franchises.

 

2013 is the one negative outlier, but can, in my opinion, be somewhat excused by the fact that the team was at the nadir of the rebuild and would reasonably have a lower relative payroll based on baseball cycles.

 

EDIT: I would also add that 2013 was a terrible year for free agents, especially pitching. The Twins probably would have signed a Nolasco or Santana type if they had been available (rather than or in addition to the Correia and Pelfrey deals they did sign). A signing like that would have made the gap between revenue and payroll rank even less glaring than it was.

 

I fully expect the team, as it continues to compete and regain rankings in annual revenue to adjust the payroll accordingly.

[drjim]

 

It's not about a percent. It's about spending rank relative to revenue rank.

Opening day payroll rank since TF opened (2010-15)... 11, 9, 13, 22, 24 (increased by K Morales), 18. Average = 16.

Revenue ranks that I could easily find (per Forbes numbers)... 2012, 16. 2014, 22. Stated to typically be in the 16-20 range by DSP.

Sure looks like it lines up just fine to me.

 

Brilliant post and thought process.

[jay]

What do you attribute It to? The pen was in the lowest quarter. Terry said it was the priority. And he did not sign anyone to a major league contract.

My hope would be that between Terry (via Jack) looking at the marginal cost of a win by acquiring a Bastardo or Sipp and the reality of player choice / preference in FA, the roster ended up where it is.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Some people say they are fans of Ryan but hate the Pohlads. What does that even mean? The Pohlads give him the budget the market allows and Ryan makes the decisions. The Pohlads didn't force him to pump $49 mil into Nolasco.

It means that I do not hold it against Ryan for the Don Beaver episode, the contraction lie (which was 100% bluff IMHO), the failed cable channel and being off television for a time, and so on. Some people have axes to grind, but I think Ryan is a really good guy and who's to say Pohlad didn't have anything to do with the Nolasco contract? I wouldn't put it past him to meddle in Ryan's business on occasion, especially at the end of the 2013 season given how inconsistent Ryan's words and behavior were.

[Major League Ready]

 

I agree these are off the top of your head, I do not agree they are not debateable:

 

1.  If we assume a 10% inflation rate, in order for other payroll costs to go up $5-6M over 2009 (last yr in the dome), other payroll would have been $50-60M in 2009.  That's...high.  Way too high.  That would be most of their "other" expenses in 2009.

 

Some quick, back of the napkin calculations (guesses)--extremely generous ones at that--puts other payroll in the range of $20M.  And by generous, I mean generous...I estimated no employees at less than $50K per year, for example, and have 20 at $150K or more (including $2M each for TR and DSP).

 

So a more reasonable estimate (and 10 percent over the past 6 yrs is in itself generous) is $2M more than 2009.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "additional personnel to run documented beefed up operations", but let's go with it.  $2m more.  Although, to be fair, they were in the Dominican before 2009, they've been in Ft Myers forever, so that's a pretty nebulous additional $2M.  That would be 20 extra employees at $100K each.  

 

2.  In 2009, the Twins paid the 22nd pick (Gibson) $1.85M.  In 2015, the 22nd pick cost Detroit $2.15m.  Rule 4 draft costs are capped now, so an argument can be made the Twins have LOWER cost risks for the draft now than they did in 2009.  For example, Stephen Strasburg cost the Nats $15M in 2009, number one pick Dansby Swanson cost the D'backs $6.5M in 2015.  We'll say, generously, the Twins can expect to be exposed to an additional $1M on average per year, although again, I think that's generous.

 

As for adding international FA's, there is now a cap, based (like the draft) on your W/L record the previous year.  In 2015, the Twins, with the 6th most money to spend, had just under $4M.  They spent more than that in 2009.  

 

So add $1M per year.  Again...generous.

 

3.  Operating costs for TF are tough to estimate.  I think you're high, but I really can't find any confirmation one way or the other.  The Twins themselves, in lobbying for a new park, estimated "in excess of $10M".  http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/new_banter.jsp?content=qa

 

Let's split the difference...$15M annually.  Take away the costs the Twins were paying in the dome anyway...office furniture, phones, internet, office supplies, etc etc etc.  We'll say $2M.  I can't find what the Metrodome lease cost the Twins in rent, so I'll say zero.

 

Make it $13M.

 

4.  This year the Twins will spend $5M on renovations...the most they've ever spent.  http://ballparkdigest.com/2015/10/26/cf-improvement-on-tap-for-target-field/

 

So it hasn't been "$5M every year, some years more."  It's been less every year.  In fact, it looks like they've spent around $11M total on renovations, or less than $2M per year.  And most, if not all, the renovations have been designed to increase revenue.  So I'll give you $2M per here, but in reality, they probably MADE money on the deal.

 

5.  The Twins opened their Domican Academy in 2004, so I'll need more than your word for it their expenses have increased greatly in the last 6 years.  I'm not sure how they could be spending a million more, but I'll give you a million.

 

The Twins have been holding spring training in Ft Myers forever, I'm not sure where you're getting huge increased costs.  According to this:  http://ballparkdigest.com/2015/10/26/cf-improvement-on-tap-for-target-field/

the entire cost of renovations was paid by Lee County.   

 

The Twins are operating a dorm now, but surely they decided that was cheaper than rent/per diem.  Call it a wash.

 

Total, $1M

 

Add it all up, with very generous estimates, and I come up with $21M.  If I was conservative, more like $12-15M.

 

That leaves a lot of space.

There are three large increases.  Target Field, Interest for Target Field, and the difference in revenue sharing.   The difference adding the other two is in the neighborhood of an additional $35M and these two are easy enough to get a good estimate.  Why would you chose to just ignore these in your argument?   It appears you simply are not being objective.

 

 

[USAFChief]

There are three large increases. Target Field, Interest for Target Field, and the difference in revenue sharing. The difference adding the other two is in the neighborhood of $35M and these two are easy enough to get a good estimate. Why would you chose to just ignore these in your argument?

I was responding, point by point, to claims from another poster.

 

But since you mention it...

 

Interest on TF loans has been pretty much my entire point. They misled the public on stadium construction, and are paying off their "contribution" from revenue, instead of putting that money into the team, as they implied in lobbying for the ballpark.

 

Show me the revenue sharing numbers. It's ironic, don't you think, to claim on one hand the Twins can't afford more payroll since their revenues are bottom third, then turn around and cite revenue sharing as a reason for low payroll.

[Major League Ready]

I was responding, point by point, to claims from another poster.

 

But since you mention it...

 

Interest on TF loans has been pretty much my entire point. They misled the public on stadium construction, and are paying off their "contribution" from revenue, instead of putting that money into the team, as they implied in lobbying for the ballpark.

 

Show me the revenue sharing numbers. It's ironic, don't you think, to claim on one hand the Twins can't afford more payroll since their revenues are bottom third, then turn around and cite revenue sharing as a reason for low payroll.

Now you are completing changing your argument.  Your post was very specific.  You could not figure out why it cost X amount more for operations now vs the Dome days.  The argument about the validity of that expense is a completely different subject.

 

I included an article that explained the change in revenue sharing.  You have spoken about fact and opinion here but it is not keeping you from accepting hard facts.   The revenue is a bit ironic at first glance but they went from near the bottom to the middle of the pack.  Again, the irony, if there is any, is absolutely irrelevant in terms of your original argument which suggested there could not possibly be that big a difference in operating costs.  The implication being this was a made up thing to justify not increasing the payroll.  The facts are as clear as they can be with our limited information but you still cant acknowledge the differences are very legitimate.

[Major League Ready]

 

Now you are completing changing your argument.  Your post was very specific.  You could not figure out why it cost X amount more for operations now vs the Dome days.  The argument about the validity of that expense is a completely different subject.

 

I included an article that explained the change in revenue sharing.  You have spoken about fact and opinion here but it is not keeping you from accepting hard facts.   The revenue is a bit ironic at first glance but they went from near the bottom to the middle of the pack.  Again, the irony, if there is any, is absolutely irrelevant in terms of your original argument which suggested there could not possibly be that big a difference in operating costs.  The implication being this was a made up thing to justify not increasing the payroll.  The facts are as clear as they can be with our limited information but you still cant acknowledge the differences are very legitimate.

 

Now you are completing changing your argument.  Your post was very specific.  You could not figure out why it cost X amount more for operations now vs the Dome days.  The argument about the validity of that expense is a completely different subject.

 

I included an article that explained the change in revenue sharing.  You have spoken about fact and opinion here but it is not keeping you from accepting hard facts.   The revenue is a bit ironic at first glance but they went from near the bottom to the middle of the pack.  Again, the irony, if there is any, is absolutely irrelevant in terms of your original argument which suggested there could not possibly be that big a difference in operating costs.  The implication being this was a made up thing to justify not increasing the payroll.  The facts are as clear as they can be with our limited information but you still cant acknowledge the differences are very legitimate.

 

Edit:  Here you go.  This article gives provides some of the history and the specific impact on the Twins.  Revenue Sharing changed by $25M from 2009 to 2010 and by roughly $45M from 2007 to 2010.

 

http://www.twinkietown.com/2010/10/19/1760846/the-minnesota-twins-revenue-sharing-and-payroll-flexibility

 

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

Now you are completing changing your argument.  Your post was very specific.  You could not figure out why it cost X amount more for operations now vs the Dome days.  The argument about the validity of that expense is a completely different subject.

 

I included an article that explained the change in revenue sharing.  You have spoken about fact and opinion here but it is not keeping you from accepting hard facts.   The revenue is a bit ironic at first glance but they went from near the bottom to the middle of the pack.  Again, the irony, if there is any, is absolutely irrelevant in terms of your original argument which suggested there could not possibly be that big a difference in operating costs.  The implication being this was a made up thing to justify not increasing the payroll.  The facts are as clear as they can be with our limited information but you still cant acknowledge the differences are very legitimate.

1.  No.  That has been my argument from day one.  Let me state it again:  The Twins increased revenue by ~$100M but have increased payroll by anywhere from $15-45M since moving into TF.  The reason is, they are paying off the debt on money borrowed to build TF.  Other posters attempted to explain away the missing money through "increased costs," I disputed that claim.

 

2.  Forbes list of MLB revenues already accounts for revenue sharing, so it is a non factor.  The revenue estimates we are all using have already factored it in.  

 

 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16297

[Mike Sixel]

1. We don't really know how much they are, or are not making.

2. Next year is terrible for FAs, so there is already a built in excuse next year also.

3. They could afford 1-2 RPs. They have decided instead to go with "dude was tipping his pitches, but we can fix that" and, well, we aren't sure about the rest of the plan.

4. This probably does not make them favorites, but, always not signing guys because you aren't 1 player away is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

5. There are always reasons not to spend money, But, this is the business they've chosen to be in. Ignoring one way to sign really good players (not mediocre ones) puts you at a disadvantage in acquiring talent, I'd think.

6. I don't see this changing, ever, so I should probably stop caring, frankly.

[tobi0040]

 

My hope would be that between Terry (via Jack) looking at the marginal cost of a win by acquiring a Bastardo or Sipp and the reality of player choice / preference in FA, the roster ended up where it is.

 

If that is the case, I think that is the exact line of thinking that frustrates Twins fans and gives the Pohlad’s are cheap crowd some red meat. 

 

Our payroll will likely be slightly down from last year, so our payroll relative to the league will fall.  Our revenues I would guess would be flat to up as the interest in the team is up.  And our owner sits back and says, we could spend $3-5M on a reliever and win another game or two, but it really isn’t worth it.  I also believe that we are ignoring the obvious here, there is a ton of room between the 3-18M that Sipp got and a minor league deal for Abad.  This type of marginal cost per win analysis could have likely identified a player that could help our pen but not cost as much as Sipp or Bastardo.

 

Lastly, I don’t see how this marginal cost per win analysis could have said, let’s sign Tim Stauffer and give him a contract that will either pay him $2.2M for 15 innings or nearly $5M for the full season. That type of analysis would not lead you to paying a below average guy top dollar.  Or tendering Brian Duensing for nearly $3M.

[drjim]

 

It means that I do not hold it against Ryan for the Don Beaver episode, the contraction lie (which was 100% bluff IMHO), the failed cable channel and being off television for a time, and so on. Some people have axes to grind, but I think Ryan is a really good guy and who's to say Pohlad didn't have anything to do with the Nolasco contract? I wouldn't put it past him to meddle in Ryan's business on occasion, especially at the end of the 2013 season given how inconsistent Ryan's words and behavior were.

 

Carl Pohlad is dead. Has been for a while. Are you going to forever hold the son accountable for the sins of the father?

 

Jim sets a budget, gets out of the way, and gives the occasional charisma-less interview.

[tobi0040]

 

Carl Pohlad is dead.

 

Are you sure about that?    I heard he is hanging out with Biggie and Pac

[DaveW]

 

If that is the case, I think that is the exact line of thinking that frustrates Twins fans and gives the Pohlad’s are cheap crowd some red meat. 

 

Our payroll will likely be slightly down from last year, so our payroll relative to the league will fall.  Our revenues I would guess would be flat to up as the interest in the team is up.  And our owner sits back and says, we could spend $3-5M on a reliever and win another game or two, but it really isn’t worth it.  I also believe that we are ignoring the obvious here, there is a ton of room between the 3-18M that Sipp got and a minor league deal for Abad.  This type of marginal cost per win analysis could have likely identified a player that could help our pen but not cost as much as Sipp or Bastardo.

 

Lastly, I don’t see how this marginal cost per win analysis could have said, let’s sign Tim Stauffer and give him a contract that will either pay him $2.2M for 15 innings or nearly $5M for the full season. That type of analysis would not lead you to paying a below average guy top dollar.  Or tendering Brian Duensing for nearly $3M.

Bingo.

Once again, this comes down to the main frustration most people have:

 

20% of it being payroll capacity

80% of it being how that payroll is being spent.

Time and time and time and time and time again we have seen the Twins overpay for mediorce to average talent: Nolasco, Pelfrey, Suzuki, Hunter, Duensing, Stauffer, Kubel, Santana, Hughes. Now, I am not saying all of those are bad signings and I'm not saying you shouldn't sign ANY guys like that, but when it's abundantly clear that your FA strategy is as followed:

 

Position players: Veterans, 0.0-1.5 WAR types

SP: #3 (Santana) #4 (Hughes/Nolasco) #5 (Pelfrey) types

RP: Garbage bin OR Twins veterans who are medicore to average (Duensing, Stauffer)

 

It gets frustrating that year after year the Twins continue to target the exact same players, now this would be all fine and dandy if the Twins were competing for a title each year, but that has been the exact opposite, at one point why not actually think a tad bit outside the box and do something different?

 

Instead of going for a one dimensional player to fill in RF (Hunter/Willingham) go out and spend a few more bucks on a higher risk/higher reward type player (Nelson Cruz!!!!) Instead of signing a bunch of mid rotation guys, sign one mid rotation guy and spend the rest of the money on a high upside ace (even if you have to give them a dreaded 5 year contract). Instead of dumpster diving for RP, go out, spend a few bucks and actually get a guy for the pen who can strike out a guy an inning.

You don't even have to do all three at once, just change ONE aspect of your FA strategy and see what happens. It's so perplexing why the Twins will happily shell out 3 years of decent money to Pelfrey (a guy who never deserved it) yet quiver in their boots when a pretty darn good RP wants two or three years at a pretty reasonable AAV,.

 

It's almost like they are using the same hard fast rules they came up with 20 years ago:
 

1. Don't pay for RP in FA.

2. Don't give out 5 year contracts for SP

3. Any position player signed must have veteran experience/leadership

4. Don't pay top dollar for ANY FA.

5. If a player has a tie to Minnesota (born/high school/college) target that player to bring them in, good PR.

 

That last one is especially unique to Minnesota as a state, it seems like every team is in love if a player is "one of them", I can't think of another state where fans give one iota if some scrap heap pick up, some special teams player etc is from their home state. Most fans want to see wins.

[DaveW]

 

 

Carl Pohlad is dead. Has been for a while. Are you going to forever hold the son accountable for the sins of the father?

 

Jim sets a budget, gets out of the way, and gives the occasional charisma-less interview.

Jim was 47 years old at the time of the contraction talks and was the clear heir to the family fortune/(Including the Twins)

 

I'd say it would take someone some significant logic hoops to jump through for a person to think that Jim had no idea what was going on at the time.

 

All Jim has shown is to be as conservative (if not more) than his father. At least Carl gave the go ahead for a "splurge" in 91, so no, he doesn't get to be given a blank slate and benefit of the doubt.

[tobi0040]

 

Bingo.

Once again, this comes down to the main frustration most people have:

 

20% of it being payroll capacity

80% of it being how that payroll is being spent.

Time and time and time and time and time again we have seen the Twins overpay for mediorce to average talent: Nolasco, Pelfrey, Suzuki, Hunter, Duensing, Stauffer, Kubel, Santana, Hughes. Now, I am not saying all of those are bad signings and I'm not saying you shouldn't sign ANY guys like that, but when it's abundantly clear that your FA strategy is as followed:

 

Position players: Veterans, 0.0-1.5 WAR types

SP: #3 (Santana) #4 (Hughes/Nolasco) #5 (Pelfrey) types

RP: Garbage bin OR Twins veterans who are medicore to average (Duensing, Stauffer)

 

It gets frustrating that year after year the Twins continue to target the exact same players, now this would be all fine and dandy if the Twins were competing for a title each year, but that has been the exact opposite, at one point why not actually think a tad bit outside the box and do something different?

 

Instead of going for a one dimensional player to fill in RF (Hunter/Willingham) go out and spend a few more bucks on a higher risk/higher reward type player (Nelson Cruz!!!!) Instead of signing a bunch of mid rotation guys, sign one mid rotation guy and spend the rest of the money on a high upside ace (even if you have to give them a dreaded 5 year contract). Instead of dumpster diving for RP, go out, spend a few bucks and actually get a guy for the pen who can strike out a guy an inning.

You don't even have to do all three at once, just change ONE aspect of your FA strategy and see what happens. It's so perplexing why the Twins will happily shell out 3 years of decent money to Pelfrey (a guy who never deserved it) yet quiver in their boots when a pretty darn good RP wants two or three years at a pretty reasonable AAV,.

 

It's almost like they are using the same hard fast rules they came up with 20 years ago:
 

1. Don't pay for RP in FA.

2. Don't give out 5 year contracts for SP

3. Any position player signed must have veteran experience/leadership

4. Don't pay top dollar for ANY FA.

5. If a player has a tie to Minnesota (born/high school/college) target that player to bring them in, good PR.

 

That last one is especially unique to Minnesota as a state, it seems like every team is in love if a player is "one of them", I can't think of another state where fans give one iota if some scrap heap pick up, some special teams player etc is from their home state. Most fans want to see wins.

 

Good post. As I see it there are two more rules.

 

6)   A 1-5 deal to a mediocre player in 2014 and another similar deal to a similar player in 2015 is better than a 2-10 year deal handed out in 2014.

 

7)  Extending players on our roster   or who played for us last year that are lesser talent is a better approach than finding players in free agency   Examples, Burton, Duensing, Pelfrey

 

I do think the Twins could do more with the same payroll.  No doubt. 

 

 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Carl Pohlad is dead. Has been for a while. Are you going to forever hold the son accountable for the sins of the father?

 

Jim sets a budget, gets out of the way, and gives the occasional charisma-less interview.

Are you serious or joking?

[dxpavelka]

 

Even teams like the Astros? I would hope they would, they're one of the biggest markets in the U.S. with a new TV deal to boot. 

I've been trying to research but haven't found out what the St. Louis Cardinals' TV deal looks like. They're the most similar to Minneapolis as far as market size is concerned, but have the highest TV ratings, and the most profitable team in the MLB. 

In the end it boils down to would cable customers pay a higher rate so the cable company could pay the FSN or whomever a higher rate.  We all want to see more money spent.  Just make sure it's somebody else's money

[jay]

I'm seeing some talking out of both sides of the mouth going on here.

 

In some posts, payroll needs to be bigger. In other posts, payroll is fine but they need to allocate it to elite FAs (and a relatively cheap RP).

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm seeing some talking out of both sides of the mouth going on here.

In some posts, payroll needs to be bigger. In other posts, payroll is fine but they need to allocate it to elite FAs (and a relatively cheap RP).

 

well, think about it:

 

My number 1 preference is they spend more wisely, on better players, and less mediocre players.

 

that does not stop me from having additional preferences:

 

1. More money spent on international signings

2. More money spent to close obvious holes, especially if that money is "small" by MLB standards (like RPs)

 

It isn't necessarily inconsistent to hold multiple positions on the payroll.....

[jay]

Not you in particular mike...

 

But to be clear, does payroll need to be bigger or is it fine within the ranges it has been? There's no room for multiple positions there.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not you in particular mike...

But to be clear, does payroll need to be bigger or is it fine within the ranges it has been? There's no room for multiple positions there.

 

Well, for this year, I'd have liked to see 1-2 RPs, so I think it is a bit low this year.

 

In years they want to compete, I'd like to see them in the top 10-12 range on payroll, in other years, in the top 15-20 in payroll. That might not be realistic, but that's what I'd want.

 

For last year or the year before, I would have preferred "overpaying" to get an elite SP here somehow. Signing Santana after signing Hughes and Nolasco and Pelfrey......that's too much for me on average/mediocre guys, imo. That said, I get why they did it, I just didn't agree.

[tobi0040]

 

I'm seeing some talking out of both sides of the mouth going on here.

In some posts, payroll needs to be bigger. In other posts, payroll is fine but they need to allocate it to elite FAs (and a relatively cheap RP).

 

Payroll could be $3-4M higher, i.e. one relief pitcher.  That is not really an outlandish statement.  That one contract would likely put the Twins in about the same rank they had this year. Especially when you offset it with the million or so Abad will make when he is on the ML roster.

 

Could they use money in a better fashion, i.e. is there 3-4M in deadweight on this team to sign the player without increasing payroll?  Absolutely. 

 

I think money would have been better spent on a good reliever rather than tendering Milone, or signing Park for that matter. 

 

I think a good FA reliever over a guy like Abad would provide more value than:

 

Milone over Berrios

 

Park over Arcia/Vargas

 

Or you could find savings by moving Plouffe for prospects.  All in I think Sano at 3B over playing in the OF makes the team bettter.  But at the end of the day the Twins have already done these things (signed Abad, Park, Milone), or plan on doing the other things (Sano to OF).

 

I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive at all.

 

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

Not you in particular mike...

But to be clear, does payroll need to be bigger or is it fine within the ranges it has been? There's no room for multiple positions there.

 

These are not multiple positions.  The Twins could pay for a reliever with other roster moves that free up cash.

 

If they are unwilling to do it, then they have the capacity to add 3-4M and remain in the same payroll rank.

[jay]

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'd add a payroll range below that for rebuilding.

 

The top end of that range is typically going to happen on the back end of a competitive window as a core talent group gets more expensive. Hitting that peak payroll earlier through acquiring an elite FA or 2 is certainly a strategy, although riskier and will inevitably affect the ability to retain at some point. I think those long deals can act to restrict moving into a rebuild phase and we've seen that typically takes too long already (not unique to the Twins).

 

I think the Twins' strategy is to fill in serviceable to above average vets where they need to and rely on their controllable talent to drive success.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing more risks taken, but probably not to the same extreme as some others. IMO, it's commonly a "I want it all" stance.