Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work

[Bill Parker]

I want to talk about the Twins and payroll, and how we talk about the Twins’ payroll.

 

It’s been about a month since Jack Moore wrote the excellent and scathing The Minnesota Small-Market Con over at Baseball Prospectus Milwaukee. The points it makes are numerous and wide-ranging -- the most important, I think, is “if the billionaire Pohlads had been willing to take a short-term loss, they could have made their way out of the Metrodome years earlier without taking the public for such a ride" -- but being published as it was in the latter part of an offseason in which fans have watched the team take very few substantial visible steps toward getting better, most seemed to take it as a chance to complain about the team's unwillingness in recent years to spend on free agents.And I get it. Having taken the public for said ride and secured a stadium that is maybe the most appealing in baseball, the Twins (per Cot’s Contracts) ended their first two seasons in Target Field with top-ten payrolls, but then fell back to 13th in 2012, and haven’t been out of the 20s since. While attendance predictably declined from 2011 to 2015, it seems a safe bet that they could generally have spent more money than they did in those years and still turned a nice profit.

 

The problem I’ve always had, though, is that this (at the most) is generally where the fan’s analysis stops. They could have spent more money, but they didn’t, and they should have. The obvious next questions that gets left on the table, though, are “on what?” and “why?”: what could that money have gotten them, and what makes it a good idea? The 2011 Twins had a $115 million payroll and were coming off a 94-win, first-place year, but with injuries to almost literally everyone -- only Danny Valencia and Michael Cuddyer would play as many as 120 games for the Twins in 2011 -- they lost 99, finishing a whopping 28 games out of a wildcard spot, and it was pretty clear their window had slammed shut. They lost 96 in both 2012 and 2013 (22 and 26 games out of the playoffs, respectively), and 92 (18 out) in 2014. Their season-ending payroll declined, meanwhile, from 9th in 2011, to 13th, to 24th.

 

But, again, what could and should they have spent more money on, and what could we have expected it to bring them? In a league in which the very best player might be worth about nine wins and four is a typical All-Star, the Twins would’ve had to add the equivalent of four or five All-Stars, two Mike Trouts, or some combination thereof (assuming each of them takes the place of true replacement-level players, to boot) in order to have had any chance at a postseason berth in any of those years. That’s not the kind of thing that’s ever happened via free agency--teams have tried, typically with disastrous consequences (check out the turn-of-the-century Devil Rays sometime).

 

But what if the postseason isn’t the goal? What about just putting a marginally more entertaining product on the field? I question whether that’s a thing, personally--it’s the competing that draws the crowds, the Timberwolves are as entertaining as a bad basketball team can get right now and not drawing substantially more than their terribly depressing squads of the last couple years did--but I get that, too. It’s not as though a team puts those savings in an interest-bearing account and adds them to the pot for next year. They would, in a perfect world, but they don’t; those savings go to the owners, and the next year’s budget is its own thing. So to the extent you’re concerned only about this season, yes, you as a fan should want the team to spend as much money as they can possibly get away with, because that money’s gone for your purposes after the season either way.

 

The problem with that is that the one-year deal for a good (or even just “entertaining”) player exists in baseball only when that player comes with huge risks. Most free agents worth signing as anything more than filler in this game demand commitments of three years, or four or five or more. Most free agents are also in their 30s, which means almost without exception that they’re likely to get worse over those three to five years, not better. What that means is that most of the free agents the Twins could’ve signed to make them marginally better or more fun in 2013 or 2014 would still be getting paid as Twins in 2016, and would be less good or fun now than they were then (but probably making at least as much money). When you don’t expect to win, you probably shouldn’t (and can’t, to field a team that avoids challenging the ‘62 Mets) stop spending entirely. But your focus in spending, way ahead of getting better for the now, has to be to avoid hamstringing the team in future seasons, when -- if your prospects pan out and you’re not too bogged down by aging players’ contracts -- you might be positioned to spend to fill more immediate needs and make a run at it.

 

In that light, I tended to think the Twins’ spending from 2012 through 2014 was just about perfect--a weird thing for me to say, as I’ve never been one to go easy on the front office (Tony Batista and Ruben Sierra? Seriously?). In 2012, there was just a long, black-dark road ahead, and nothing to do but fill a couple of the gaps to try to be interesting and wait it out. And that’s exactly what they did, bringing in Josh Willingham (who worked) and Ryan Doumit (who didn’t) to fill in for the departing Michael Cuddyer and Jason Kubel, and otherwise just stayed put and take their lumps. Heading into 2014, with Byron Buxton, Miguel Sano and others now on their way, it made sense to take a look at some relatively low-risk, 30-or-younger free agents who could reasonably be expected to be contributing at about the same level a couple years down the line, and they did that, bringing in Phil Hughes (who I’d argue worked) and Ricky Nolasco (who thus far clearly hasn’t), along with more stopgaps like Mike Pelfrey and Kurt Suzuki. For whatever else the Twins have done right or wrong, this is exactly how a non-contending team should spend its money. Should they have spent more of it? Perhaps--but it’s on the one arguing they should to identify where they should’ve spent it and why. Whining that they’re cheap and run by billionaires just doesn’t cut it; they’re losing ninety-plus either way. Show your work.

 

I’ve left out 2015 so far, of course, and that’s a tough one because we know how it ends: the Twins win 83 games, surprising everyone, and miss the wildcard play-in game by just three wins. They entered the last week with a real shot, and as it turns out, even one modest upgrade in the offseason could have gotten them there. That’s cheating, though: the Twins didn’t know how it would end, and I really think they were looking at 2016 or 2017 as their next legitimate chance, and so they stayed the course, bringing in 32-year-old Ervin Santana to add to their stable of average starters who seem likely to still be about average by the next time they thought they’d be competitive. Were there moves that not only could have put them over the top as things turned out, but that they should have made in December or January 2014-15, knowing and believing what they reasonably did then? Maybe! But I’d like to know what those specifically were. (Note also that a first half from Santana might itself ultimately have put them in the playoffs.)

 

So that gets us to today. I’ve been as frustrated as anyone with the lack of activity: Byung-Ho Park is certainly interesting, but hardly fills a glaring need, and there’s not much else that’s even worth mentioning. It feels much like a team with two third basemen and three or four 1B/DH types, which seems to suggest moves to be made, and I would’ve loved to see them land, say, Darren O’Day, an elite reliever who signed a four-year deal to stay with the Orioles similar to the ones the Twins gave Santana and Nolasco. But: O’Day is 32 years old, and at his very best -- at any modern reliever’s best -- is worth about three wins. The Twins had a lot of luck last year, and while I’m looking forward to seeing what they can do in 2016, there’s good reason to believe they’re not quite there yet, with or without the upgraded bullpen. If, as Baseball Prospectus’ PECOTA expects, they go 79-83 and miss the playoffs by seven games, O’Day probably wouldn’t have made a difference, and neither would most anyone else. And then what about in 2018, when Buxton and Sano are MVP candidates, but O’Day is 35 and ineffective, while his $9 million salary helps prevent you from signing that year’s Darren O’Day, who could be the difference between an LDS loss and a world championship?

 

I have no answers. I thought they should have done more this offseason, and I sure hope that they do well enough that there’s a worry it might come back to bite them. But too often, we collectively seem to want the team to spend more money without considering a.) the limits of what that spending can actually do, or b.) the risks down the road of imprudently committing money now. Fans can complain that the team is cheap all they want -- and why not, it’s just baseball, it’s all in fun, you do you -- but without an idea of how they should spend that extra money, why they should and what might happen if it goes bad, all it is is whining for whining’s sake. Seems to me it’s more fun, more instructive, and, at least in this case, harder to argue with the plan, if you show your work.

 

Click here to view the article

[tobi0040]

I think the Twins could have been more aggressive with the pen. It is a need and they could have found a reliever that would have been among the top three in our pen on a one year deal.

 

In no way restrictive of future payrolls and without question would not be blocking anyone for at least the first half of the year.

[Han Joelo]

I agree with what you've written here.  They are damned if they do (Hughes extension, Nolasco) spend the money, and if they don't (insert mythical free-agent actual difference maker here.)

 

 Although I don't live in a city with a major publicly subsidized stadium, wouldn't it be fair if the owners "spent" the under on their expected budget on local charities?  Heck, maybe they did.  

 

Cynically, I'd assume that money is in the Cayman Islands, or a SuperPac, or, being a westerner, maybe they spent it on 50,000 acres of formerly public land.

 

[dberthia]

If they would have hung on to some of their existing talent, we probably would't even need to be discussing our lack of action on the free agent market. We could've gotten a few more years out of JJ Hardy, and could have used Ben Revere until Buxton was ready. The talent we've let go to flourish elsewhere is astounding. I think in many cases the money would have been better spent on retention instead of free agents.

[Dantes929]

If we kept Revere until Buxton was ready we wouldn't have Trevor May and I would not trade May back for Revere.    Never should have let Hardy go but I doubt he would have made a world of difference.    Because of the ridiculous amount of injuries in 2011 we needed 2012 to figure out who could be counted on.and the minors were a mess so as far as I am concerned the rebuilding process was 2013 and 2014.     I like having Santana for a fulll year but if we had him for a full year last year he might have taken Pelfrey's place who had a very good first half.    Another reliever might have had some impact but you count on your all stars to be all stars and Perkins in all star form probably would have gotten us there.    I am not worried about spending money at the moment.  If Buxton, Berrios and Sano become who we hope they will the Twins will be spending a lot of money soon enough.  What reliever should they have brought in this year?   There probably was one or two but as suggested in the article, name some names.  How much for how long and how that would have fit into current and future.

 

[Bill Parker]

 

I think the Twins could have been more aggressive with the pen. It is a need and they could have found a reliever that would have been among the top three in our pen on a one year deal.

In no way restrictive of future payrolls and without question would not be blocking anyone for at least the first half of the year.

Who, though? Honest question, because I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. Generally, relievers that go on reasonable one-year deals do so because they're as likely to blow up completely as they are to repeat their past success, and if they were that sure of a thing, they'd get more money over more years. But maybe that guy was out there somewhere.

[Bill Parker]

 

If they would have hung on to some of their existing talent, we probably would't even need to be discussing our lack of action on the free agent market. We could've gotten a few more years out of JJ Hardy, and could have used Ben Revere until Buxton was ready. The talent we've let go to flourish elsewhere is astounding. I think in many cases the money would have been better spent on retention instead of free agents.

Revere is an odd pick, since he's on his third team since they let him go and certainly hasn't flourished anywhere, and he brought back Trevor May, who figures to be a key piece for the next couple years. The Hardy trade was one of the worst I've ever seen (and looked just as inexcusably bad at the time), though he's signed two at-market contracts with the Orioles since then, so I'm not sure that has any impact on the 2016 squad. I can't think of any talent they've lost since 2011 or 2012 that I thought they should have kept. Letting Cuddyer and Kubel walk were no-brainers, and Revere and Span brought back good (at least at the time) returns and would certainly be gone by now at any rate. Maybe I'm missing somebody...

[Blackjack]

The fans have spoken with their declining attendance at Target Field, which translates into less $8 beers and $10 hot dogs sold.

 

Spend some money to have a competitive team, make more money because the fans attend more games, and have more fun because your team is contending -- or lose a bunch of games. Pick your poison. 

[Bill Parker]

 

The fans have spoken with their declining attendance at Target Field, which translates into less $8 beers and $10 hot dogs sold.

 

Spend some money to have a competitive team, make more money because the fans attend more games, and have more fun because your team is contending -- or lose a bunch of games. Pick your poison. 

"That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works..."

[markos]

I have two complaints about their spending during the past few seasons. To the best of my knowledge, the Twins have neither:
1) Paid the salary (either in full or just part) of a veteran player that they were trading away to potentially get a better return. Maybe they could have gotten back two prospects for Span instead of just one if they had agreed to pay half his salary. Maybe they could have received a better return (or at least had more teams interested) for Willingham, Morneau or Liriano if they would have covered their salary for the rest of the season.
2) Taken on a bad contract from another team in an attempt to acquire young talent. Both the Braves and the Brewers have used this strategy to get some good young players.

 

I also have smaller complaints about their apparent disinterest in going over their bonus pools in international signings and domestic drafts.

[Monkeypaws]

It all depends on how good Buxton, Gordon, Stewart, and Jay end up being, being the premium draft product of the 4 year tank. 

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

Who, though? Honest question, because I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. Generally, relievers that go on reasonable one-year deals do so because they're as likely to blow up completely as they are to repeat their past success, and if they were that sure of a thing, they'd get more money over more years. But maybe that guy was out there somewhere.

 

I just looked at the guys out there.  Not much on one year deals.  Had we gone two years for Mark Lowe is Steve Cishek, I think the same principles apply. 

 

On the trade front, the Mets didn't give up a ton for Alex Torres.  He is under team control until 2019 and has a career ERA+ of 137. Fein and Jepsen are in the 110 range.

 

I think we have an intriguing group of young talent for the pen.   Don't get me wrong.  But Glen is the only reliever with a contract for 2017.  We have continually invested high draft picks in these guys and we hear they are could be "fast risers".  But so far very few, if any have demanded a spot.  So holding six spots in 2017 for them seems really foolish.   Some of these guys were not very good last year (Reed and Meyer).  Melotakis didn't throw a pitch.  Some of these guys will struggle this year and/or get hurt. 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by tobi0040

[barbarosa]

Great article, on spending for the Twins future.  And I guess I agree with most especially this year.  Has the management squandered talent in the past yes, will they in the future...yes, we just saw that with the trade of Hicks for Murphy.  The Twins pushed Hicks, too soon for many as he was making outs as easily as politicians hand out promises.  Only, with time did he start to turn around, and I dont' think the Yankees would give anything away or take something that did not show promise.   I am only hoping this trade actually works out for us and is not another "finger in the dike" move like those in the past.

 

One has to believe there are well laid out plans for the Twins, one also can see where some of the plans have taken several hits.  It is hard to believe the Twins did not plan for a new catcher to replace Mauer, I believe they did... unfortunately, some of those high hope drafts have not turned out nor was the timeframe for replacement probably what they planned either. Thus maybe our finger in the dike?  

 

I have to believe, as with most Twins fans, that our youth and our farm system is going to start producing.  We just need to hang in there and quit spending money on weather veterans.  Management also has to start thinking about putting the best team on the field, not the most paid.

[tobi0040]

 

 I have to believe, as with most Twins fans, that our youth and our farm system is going to start producing.  We just need to hang in there and quit spending money on weather veterans.  Management also has to start thinking about putting the best team on the field, not the most paid.

 

I agree with the broad point that this team will either sink or swim based on the prospects. That is true for almost all franchises.  But you have to be able to supplement your rosters needs.  I don’t see us doing a ton of that and I don’t see any real evidence of good young guys being blocked because of high priced veterans.

 

Sano was out all of 2014.  Buxton and Rosario moved fairly quick, given Buxton’s at bats last year, maybe too quick.  I used to think Meyer should have moved quicker, but the Twins look like the smart one there.  And I think May to the pen was a man-made issue based on not addressing the pen.  I don’t think you have to move May to the pen because tendering Milone was something we just had to do.

[dxpavelka]

Noticed a few comments about spending money on the pen.  Bullpen is probably the last place you should spend money.  For every Kevin Jepsen who gives you a reasonable return on your money, there's a Matt Capps-and a Ron Davis--and some years a Blaine Boyer AND a Tim Stauffer.  Most teams that successfully rebuild a bullpen do so with young arms from the farm.  No need for this team to do otherwise.

[dxpavelka]

 

I agree with the broad point that this team will either sink or swim based on the prospects. That is true for almost all franchises.  But you have to be able to supplement your rosters needs.  I don’t see us doing a ton of that and I don’t see any real evidence of good young guys being blocked because of high priced veterans.

 

Sano was out all of 2014.  Buxton and Rosario moved fairly quick, given Buxton’s at bats last year, maybe too quick.  I used to think Meyer should have moved quicker, but the Twins look like the smart one there.  And I think May to the pen was a man-made issue based on not addressing the pen.  I don’t think you have to move May to the pen because tendering Milone was something we just had to do.

May to the pen is a foolish move.  He's got the best chance of anybody to become an ace capable of giving us 200+ lights out innings a year and we're wasting him in a role where MIGHT pitch half that many innings.  Get with it Twins.

[DocBauer]

Outstanding article! Really, one of the best I think I've read on TD. Even if someone should not agree, and I happen to, the logic to your stance is pretty foolproof.

 

It's easy sometimes to say "SPEND!" But it is far more difficult to say on who and what and why. The truth is the Twins spent when they thought they had a team that could win. (Not arguing spending MORE at that time to help win-just stating the fact that they DID SPEND) Now, I'm not sure I can refute the option of the Twins spending to KEEP that team intact, though it could be debatable as to whether spending the money to keep 30-somethings like Cuddy error and Kubel and others at that point was the right idea.

 

But the truth is seemingly everyone got hurt, Mauer got hurt again, Morneau nevèr recovered until gone, Kubel and Cuddy left, and Valencia seemed to be a 1 year wonder. At that point, honestly, I'm not sure what you could spend, or on who, to recover.

 

In a change of organizational philosophy, the Twins have begun spending on FA, and not just the journeyman type. Now, I could go on about CF and the bullpen the past couple of years, and I have before, and I could probably name some names. But i agree with a strong point made in the article which is to avoid getting caught in a financial trap. To a degree, this has happened with Nolasco. If you could look in a crystall ball or hop in a time machine, you'd save the $12M and possibly use it on a $20M man.

 

The Twins have never mentioned a rebuild, but come on, we all know that's what's been going on. And it's continuing this season as well. The Twins made some smart moves, got nice contributions, and won/challenged in 2015, probably a year sooner than expected.

[tobi0040]

 

Noticed a few comments about spending money on the pen.  Bullpen is probably the last place you should spend money.  For every Kevin Jepsen who gives you a reasonable return on your money, there's a Matt Capps-and a Ron Davis--and some years a Blaine Boyer AND a Tim Stauffer.  Most teams that successfully rebuild a bullpen do so with young arms from the farm.  No need for this team to do otherwise.

 

Stauffer and Boyer were dumpster pick ups.  You could use the same logic for any position. 

 

"You should not spend money on an OF, look at Joe Benson". 

[sandbun]

I'm going to have to be a dissenter.

 

"I’ve left out 2015 so far, of course, and that’s a tough one because we know how it ends: the Twins win 83 games, surprising everyone, and miss the wildcard play-in game by just three wins. They entered the last week with a real shot, and as it turns out, even one modest upgrade in the offseason could have gotten them there. That’s cheating, though: the Twins didn’t know how it would end"

 

So it's perfectly fair to look back on a season and say we would've needed to sign a bunch of all-stars for it to have made a difference and so what's the point, but cheating to look back and say we only needed one more good player to make the playoffs. That feels unfair.

 

I barely remember what I had for supper last night, so no I can't go back the last few offseasons and remember who they should've gotten. I remember wanting to get Garza and wanting to spend the money to sign AL pitchers rather than the career NL ones that TR kept signing, but particular names escape me. But I find it hard to believe that there was no way of using that money to improve the team. And frankly I believe the front office sending the message 'We care about winning', is worth sending even if it's not going to make a big difference in your win/loss record. Not to mention it would be nice to see if TR can use that money in FA effectively. If not that tells us maybe it's time to look for a replacement there too, or at least a 2nd pair of eyes.

[dgwills]

I'm pretty well convinced the Twins are not as cheap as they have been in the past. The contracts for Mauer and Nolasco are pretty good examples. As far as using the resources well......Then that's another story. In these rebuilding years they should of blown up their international pool money at least once. You're not spending it anywhere else and it's a good way to acquire assets for the future. Maybe they did not see players that were worth the investment at that time.  Most of the big market teams have already done this, so this year should be a good indicator of how important it is to the Twins to build a contender. 

[Bill Parker]

So it's perfectly fair to look back on a season and say we would've needed to sign a bunch of all-stars for it to have made a difference and so what's the point, but cheating to look back and say we only needed one more good player to make the playoffs. That feels unfair.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The point is that those teams knew ahead of time that they were going to be (about) that bad. You could have forgiven some aggressive spending in 2011, for instance. There wasn't any--Nishioka and bringing back Thome and Pavano was about it--but you could understand if they did, even though ultimately they lost 99 and there could really have been no saving them, because they were coming off that 94-win 2010. Once the collapse happened, though, it was clear there was really no way out that didn't involve a big ol' rebuild. Chasing after short-term boosts from 2012-2014 would've been fruitless, as they knew it would be, and the results bear that out. 

 

What I'm arguing is that coming into 2015, it looked a bit better, but not all that much different than it did coming into 2012-14. What actually happened was very unexpected, and probably a bit lucky. So yeah, it's cheating to look at the 2015 results and try to retroactively make decisions for them, when no one could reasonably have expected those results.

[sandbun]

 

What I'm arguing is that coming into 2015, it looked a bit better, but not all that much different than it did coming into 2012-14. What actually happened was very unexpected, and probably a bit lucky. So yeah, it's cheating to look at the 2015 results and try to retroactively make decisions for them, when no one could reasonably have expected those results.

 

My point is you never know when things are going to click/you get a bit lucky. Is it impossible to imagine that Nishi/Nolasco/whoever played better than they did and instead of them costing us games they won us ones and the Twins found themselves having a chance? I think it's silly to assume you have no chance and therefore avoid making moves that can help you because you suspect it won't help you enough when you're sitting on all that money. So I don't think it's any more cheating than looking back on the bad seasons to say "See, you never know. This is why you spend that money."

[y2jjj54]

I think most of the guys listed below, that have been signed in the last couple of years, would have helped.  I know this list is kind of cherry picked for guys that have worked out, but most of them were at the top of their free agent class where the twins are unwilling to spend.

 

David Price
Brian McCann
Andrew Miller
Russell Martin
Jose Abreau
David Robertson
Justin Upton
Hisashi Iwakuma
Joaquin Benoit
Adrian Beltre
Yu Darvish
Yoenis Cespedes
Jon Lester
Jhonny Peralta
Zack Greinke
Scott Kazmir
James Shields
Hunter Pence

[Broker]

This is the best money post I have ever read. Most commenters seem to think that assembling a roster is kind of like going to the grocery store. Just grab a cart and check your list then head for the shelves. Lights out relievers on aisle B, top shelf on the left. Everybody knows better but we can't seem to help ourselves.

 

I've been reading these blogs since the bat-girl days so I'm not a rookie. Terrific payroll post Bill.

[twinsajsf]

Thank you, Bill!  I've been trying to say exactly this with occasional posts for several years now, but have not been able to do so as eloquently or comprehensively as you have done here.  I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said, and look forward to reading more from you.  If you post more, then hopefully I can avoid my own clumsy attempts to make some of these points going forward:).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

May to the pen is a foolish move.  He's got the best chance of anybody to become an ace capable of giving us 200+ lights out innings a year and we're wasting him in a role where MIGHT pitch half that many innings.  Get with it Twins.

While I hate May in the bullpen, Berrios has a better chance of becoming an ace.

 

Hell, I'd argue that Meyer has a better chance of becoming an ace.

 

Trevor May has almost zero chance of becoming an ace. His ceiling is a very good #2 if everything breaks right. That's an extremely valuable pitcher - and one that should be in the rotation - but it's not an ace by any definition other than "the guy who starts on Opening Day". A Brad Radke-style "ace", that is.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The point is that those teams knew ahead of time that they were going to be (about) that bad. You could have forgiven some aggressive spending in 2011, for instance. There wasn't any--Nishioka and bringing back Thome and Pavano was about it--but you could understand if they did, even though ultimately they lost 99 and there could really have been no saving them, because they were coming off that 94-win 2010. Once the collapse happened, though, it was clear there was really no way out that didn't involve a big ol' rebuild. Chasing after short-term boosts from 2012-2014 would've been fruitless, as they knew it would be, and the results bear that out. 

 

What I'm arguing is that coming into 2015, it looked a bit better, but not all that much different than it did coming into 2012-14. What actually happened was very unexpected, and probably a bit lucky. So yeah, it's cheating to look at the 2015 results and try to retroactively make decisions for them, when no one could reasonably have expected those results.

 

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? We won't be good, so let's not try to be good, see, we couldn't be good!.........

 

There has never been a time I've come here, when people didn't say "there are all these reasons not to spend money, and the Twins are right not to, and they aren't cheap, even though we just paid millions to increase their revenue for them through taxes"......when do we read "the Twins are contenders, and they should be spending money on legit, big time, players to fill holes"? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If, as Baseball Prospectus’ PECOTA expects, they go 79-83 and miss the playoffs by seven games, O’Day probably wouldn’t have made a difference, and neither would most anyone else. And then what about in 2018, when Buxton and Sano are MVP candidates, but O’Day is 35 and ineffective, while his $9 million salary helps prevent you from signing that year’s Darren O’Day, who could be the difference between an LDS loss and a world championship?

Just FYI, but $9 mil (and O'Days $7.75 mil AAV) isn't that much in modern MLB.  It should never prevent you from signing the final piece like your 2018 hypothetical, and frankly shouldn't prevent you from betting against PECOTA in what's expected to be a tight division in 2016.

 

And the Twins seemed to be drawing a hard line well south of that this winter, without a rumored offer or strong rumored interest in any reliever beyond a $4 mil total commitment.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Just FYI, but $9 mil (and O'Days $7.75 mil AAV) isn't that much in modern MLB.  It should never prevent you from signing the final piece like your 2018 hypothetical, and frankly shouldn't prevent you from betting against PECOTA in what's expected to be a tight division in 2016.

 

And the Twins seemed to be drawing a hard line well south of that this winter, without a rumored offer or strong rumored interest in any reliever beyond a $4 mil total commitment.

 

Plus, it's always a moving goalpost for when they will be good, as Hunter or Santana once said, this team always plays for the future, a future which never comes. 2 years ago, I was told 2 years. Last year, I was told 2-3 more years. Now, this (very well written, btw) article says, 2 more years.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I would’ve loved to see them land, say, Darren O’Day, an elite reliever who signed a four-year deal to stay with the Orioles similar to the ones the Twins gave Santana and Nolasco.

How are those contracts similar?  All for 4 years, but Nolasco is $4.5 mil AAV ahead of O'Day's deal, and Santana is a full $6 mil AAV ahead.  If $9 mil is large enough to block an addition to a hypothetical 2018 star-studded team, isn't a $4.5-$6 mil AAV contract difference pretty important?