Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

All that said, the first thing I would change would be to trade Cuddyer, Kubel, and Nathan at the 2011 deadline. The team wasn't going anywhere and that could have helped expedite the rebuild.

We got Berrios, Chargois, and Bard as compensation draft picks in 2012 for letting Cuddyer and Kubel depart as free agents.  No shame in that.

 

Also, Nathan was having a pretty dismal season coming back from injury in 2011 -- I don't think there was much of a market for him at the July 31st deadline.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And your 2011 trade deadline moves hypothetical is flawed. They were only 6 games back on July 31 and had been playing pretty good ball for 2 months - based on the history of the team it would have been especially aggressive to blow it up at that point.

Ah yes, July 2011.  I remember getting excited as we snuck back into the race.  But when we were 6 games out of the division lead, we were also 7 games under .500, in 4th place in the division, and a whopping 14 games out of the wild card.  We were actually closer to last place (5 games) than any kind of playoff spot.

 

We were sellers at the 2007 deadline in a far better position -- 4 games over .500, 5-6 games out of both the division and wild card, only trailing 3 teams in the wild card.  And of course with Johan, Hunter, a healthy Mauer and Morneau, etc.

 

In any case, as I noted in a post above, I don't think we had many good assets to sell in 2011, and the old free agent compensation system was still in place, ensuring we'd get good picks for them in the 2012 draft.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

We got Berrios, Chargois, and Bard as compensation draft picks in 2012 for letting Cuddyer and Kubel depart as free agents.  No shame in that.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine a situation where that worked out better for the Twins. It's unlikely Cuddyer brings back a consensus #10-15 prospect in all of baseball.

[markos]

 

So there you go. $125M. YOU tell US if the Twins are contenders in 2016.

I'll bite. 

 

First, here are the baseline salary numbers I used, which I got from http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

2011: $112M

2012: $94M

2013: $75M

2014: $85M

2015: $108M

2016: $108M (via baseball-reference's estimate)

 

Second, 

 

2011

+ Don't trade JJ Hardy. 

- Don't sign Nishioka

This doesn't move the needle for the 2011 season, which was not salvageable due to all the injuries. But it will hopefully set up things going forward...

Salary added: +$5M

 

2012

+ sign JJ Hardy to a 3 year, $21M deal (same deal he signed with Baltimore)

+ sign Mark Beuhrle to a 5 year, $58M deal 

Fun fact: the 2012 Twins position players were pretty decent, and with Hardy they would definitely be a league-average group. Beuhrle doesn't solve the problem, but going into the season with Beuhrle, Liriano and Pavano as the top three is respectable, and replacing 30+ starts from PJ Walters, Cole Devries, Liam Hendricks, et al would certainly help the overall result. Given who they replaced on the roster, these two moves potentially add 8ish wins. So a 70-75 win team.

Salary added: +$21.5M

New total payroll: $115M

 

2013

+ Sign Anibel Sanchez to a 5 year/$85M contract

+ Sign Torii Hunter to a 2 year/$26M contract

- Don't trade Denard Span

- Don't sign Mike Pelfrey

Continuing with my theme that the offense wasn't the big problem, I would have kept Span. The one hole on the offense (both this year and going forward) is someone competent to play a OF/DH and actually hit okay. That is the motivation for signing Hunter. On the pitching side, I would have brought in Sanchez. This would have worked out really well, as Sanchez pitched like a borderline ace in 2013. Adding Sanchez and Beurhle probably combine to add 10 wins on their own (considering who they would have been replacing), and adding Span and Hunter (and Hardy) would have all been positives to the offense. All told, I don't think it is too crazy to think this version would have been 15ish wins better than the actual 2013 squad. That is an 81 win team on paper, which is a borderline contender.

Salary added: +$50M
New total payroll: $125M

 

2014

- Don't sign Nolasco

- Don't extend Suzuki

Still sign Hughes. With Hunter on board, there is much less need to run out Parmelee, Colabello, Morales and Kubel for hundreds of at bats. Again, I think there is a good argument that this team is roughly .500. 

Salary added: +$39M
New total payroll: $124M

 

2015

+ Sign Russell Martin to a 5 year/$82M contract (same structure: 7-15-20-20-20)

- Don't extend Hughes

- Don't sign Santana

On paper, this is a better team. Would they have been able to replicate the magic of 2015 despite down years from Beurhle and Sanchez? I don't know. But before the season, I wouldn't be shocked if the team was expected to be above .500. But what is interesting is that by this point, the salary difference between my hypothetical scenario and the real-world scenario are not that different. 

Salary added: +$9M
New total payroll: $117M

 

2016

Do nothing?

Span and Beurhle are off the books, so at this point my scenario is in the exact same shape as the current payroll. And personally I prefer the combination of Sanchez/Martin over Nolasco/Santana/Suzuki. And the cavalry is arriving.

Salary added: -$1M

New total payroll: $107M

 

My plan definitely didn't create any juggernauts, but I do think that it did a good job of keep the team competitive and possibly in the wild-card conversation during both 2013 and 2014 without causing any significant damage to the 2016 and beyond teams, all while staying within the $125M budget.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

My plan definitely didn't create any juggernauts, but I do think that it did a good job of keep the team competitive and possibly in the wild-card conversation during both 2013 and 2014 without causing any significant damage to the 2016 and beyond teams, all while staying within the $125M budget.

Awesome post, thanks.  I must say, I really enjoy your contributions to this site.

 

I think this kind of competitiveness gets under-rated by a lot on this board.  There often seems to be an attitude that if you're not projected to win 85+ games, you shouldn't bother adding MLB talent, or perhaps you should even tear down and rebuild.

 

But like you say, staying around .500 means you are in the hunt, potentially the whole season with the second wild card.  Do that from 2012-2014, that's huge for fan interest -- I'd guess attendance could have held steady close to 34k per game, rather than dropping to 27k per game as it has, and TV ratings could have increased too (unfortunately it looks like our TV deal was last negotiated prior to 2011, but higher interest/ratings in the meantime would have only helped future negotiations/renegotiations).

[Otto von Ballpark]

And given that 2011 was still bad, you could still have reaped the rewards of the 2012 draft (Buxton, Berrios, Duffey, Rogers, Walker, Chargois, Melotakis, etc.).

 

Your projected 2012-2014 records aren't so good as to prevent you from selling under the right circumstances like 2007 (so you could still potentially move Liriano for Escobar in 2012).

 

Keeping Span and signing Hunter makes it even easier to deal Revere for May.

 

You still have Hicks as an asset in your scenario too, who probably didn't lose his prospect shine so quickly in 2013 if you wanted to move him earlier, or you could have kept him too.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My plan definitely didn't create any juggernauts, but I do think that it did a good job of keep the team competitive and possibly in the wild-card conversation during both 2013 and 2014 without causing any significant damage to the 2016 and beyond teams, all while staying within the $125M budget.

While I agree that your plan is pretty sound and keeps the team "in contention", is that really a good thing? As we've seen with past Jays teams, hovering around .500 in perpetuity leads to some really uninspiring baseball.

 

I would have taken almost the opposite tack you did. After 2011, I would have dismantled the team as thoroughly as possible. Stop spending money. Pick up flyers like Kazmir, Marcum, and hope you strike gold, fueling midseason trades. Stay away from the Correias and Pelfreys and other "warm bodies". Every move is about two things: being bad in the short-term and filling the minors with prospects. Basically, the Houston Astros approach. In year three, start picking up a few small pieces. In year four, pick up nicer pieces.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mid-market team to stay in contention for over a decade (and, by and large, the Twins had been contenders for a decade going into 2011). I believe there has to be an ebb and flow to how you treat the roster. If the team is bad, blow it up quickly and try to move the window of a rebuild to three years, not 4-5 years. Don't try to work around a depleted farm system in hopes you can win 85 games and sneak into the playoffs if everything breaks right, blow that **** up and try to patch together 3-4 season runs of 90+ wins.

[tobi0040]

 

 

And the DH does not outhit Park.

 

If we platooned Arcia and Cris Carter at DH, we would be running out a near .800 OPS based on their career numbers.  Carter signed for 1 year and $2.5M.  I am guessing you could find a superior bat against lefties for slightly more money but he was the first guy I looked up on the FA list.   I don’t think Park is anywhere near a lock to exceed that.  He struck out 25% of the time in Korea.  If that translates to 28% or higher here, here is a quick list of guys last year with a k rate over 28%.   Only Davis and Bryant exceeded that OPS number. 

 

 

Here is the list of guys with a k rate above 28%

 

Chris Davis     31%     .920 OPS  (47 HR)

Michael Taylor    30.9%    .640 OPS

Kris Bryant    30.6%      .857 OPS

Ian Desmond   29.2%    .674 OPS

Joc Pederson   29.1%    .760 OPS

Addison Russell    28.5%   .695 OPS

Brandon Moss     28.1%     .711 OPS

 

But the biggest issue with the Park signing is this was an area of depth prior to his signing.  Now he has a four year deal.  Nishi only played 68 games, but he was really, really bad.  Un-playable.  My fear with Park is that he has a .700 to .725 OPS and gets 1,500 at bats as our DH the next 3-4 years.

Edited February 23, 2016 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

While I agree that your plan is pretty sound and keeps the team "in contention", is that really a good thing? As we've seen with past Jays teams, hovering around .500 in perpetuity leads to some really uninspiring baseball.

 

I think it's a good thing, and the Jays aren't really a fair comparison.  That team was uninspiring more due to their AL East competition than anything else -- four times they hit 85+ wins in the 21st century prior to last year, and they never finished closer than 10 games out of first in those seasons.  Meanwhile, the AL Central winner had 90 or fewer wins 5 times in that span of years.

 

Then the Jays recent timing was bad -- when the second wild card was introduced in 2012, and the longtime NY/BOS division dominance perhaps waning a bit, the Jays put up two of their lowest win totals in recent history, 73 and 74 wins.  Of course, markos' alternate universe Twins could have had similar bad luck and records those years, but they also could have had some good luck and broke through one year like the 2015 Jays, with 93 wins and one of the most electrified fanbases in all of sport.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think it's a good thing, and the Jays aren't really a fair comparison.  That team was uninspiring more due to their AL East competition than anything else -- four times they hit 85+ wins in the 21st century prior to last year, and they never finished closer than 10 games out of first in those seasons.  Meanwhile, the AL Central winner had 90 or fewer wins 5 times in that span of years.

 

Then the Jays recent timing was bad -- when the second wild card was introduced in 2012, and the longtime NY/BOS division dominance perhaps waning a bit, the Jays put up two of their lowest win totals in recent history, 73 and 74 wins.  Of course, markos' alternate universe Twins could have had similar bad luck and records those years, but they also could have had some good luck and broke through one year like the 2015 Jays, with 93 wins and one of the most electrified fanbases in all of sport.

That's my point, though. The Jays' high water mark was 86 wins. No matter which division you play, that's going to miss the playoffs the majority of the time.

 

If you don't like the Jays comp, let's look at an ALC team that takes a similar approach to Toronto: the White Sox. Since winning the WS, their high water mark is 89 games, which earned them a 163 playoff and a quick exit from the postseason. They try to compete every year yet have one (bad) postseason appearance to show for it.

 

The only mid-market team that seems capable of sustaining success is the Cardinals and they might be the most well-run franchise in baseball. For the majority of teams, I believe the ebb and flow approach gives you the best chance of going deep into the postseason.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I would have taken almost the opposite tack you did. After 2011, I would have dismantled the team as thoroughly as possible. Stop spending money. Pick up flyers like Kazmir, Marcum, and hope you strike gold, fueling midseason trades. Stay away from the Correias and Pelfreys and other "warm bodies". Every move is about two things: being bad in the short-term and filling the minors with prospects. Basically, the Houston Astros approach. In year three, start picking up a few small pieces. In year four, pick up nicer pieces.

But for what?  You guarantee disastrous losing for 3 years.  And at the end of it, do you really have a sunnier outlook than what markos' Twins would have?  The Twins youth and prospect strength right now has very little to do with their losing from 2012-2014 -- it's based more on smart international signings circa 2009 and good drafting in 2012.

 

And gaining a lot of value by rebuilding isn't always so easy -- you have to pick the right flyers (Feldman vs Marcum, Kazmir vs. Harden), you have to flip them to the right teams at the right times, and you have to develop those players you receive.  It's actually probably easier and a more likely path to sustained success to focus on signing quality MLB players that can help you like Buehrle, and just sign/draft/trade as best as you can as opportunities present themselves, rather than going out of your way to create those opportunities by tanking for multiple seasons.

[nicksaviking]

 

But the biggest issue with the Park signing is this was an area of depth prior to his signing.  Now he has a four year deal.  Nishi only played 68 games, but he was really, really bad.  Un-playable.  My fear with Park is that he has a .700 to .725 OPS and gets 1,500 at bats as our DH the next 3-4 years.

 

I agree that Park was pretty redundant, but his contract is so cheap he's basically being paid like a bench player. He's a lotto ticket and I'm more than willing to gamble with that power upside.

 

I don't like 3-4 year deals either, but if he's as bad as Nishioka, I have no doubt that the Twins would eat the remaining $6M and DFA'ing him after two years. It's not Twins-like, but it's not unheard of, and besides, it'll be a drop in the bucket compared to what they'll have already eaten having already gotten rid of Nolasco by that time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But for what?  You guarantee disastrous losing for 3 years.  And at the end of it, do you really have a sunnier outlook than what markos' Twins would have? 

Possibly not but he's also using a fair amount of hindsight. Sure, the Sanchez signing would have been great but how do you choose that guy and is he even interested? Remember, the Tigers traded for Sanchez and he resigned with the team because he enjoyed Detroit. It appears he mostly ignored the FA market and took a reasonable deal that was probably worth less than he would have received on the open market.

 

The Span deal is another example. It was considered a fair trade at the time but unfortunately, it hasn't panned out for the Twins. Couple the Revere trade and we're getting into a quite revisionist form of history. If the Twins have Span, do the Phillies demand him (probably offering more in the process) and ignore Revere? Remove one key element and we can't expect the same events to cascade into place quite so gracefully.

 

And then Hunter. Yeah, he's a former Twin but does he sign with the team if it's coming off a 75 win season? He was old and knew the Tigers were his last shot at contention.

 

It's easy to look back and say "I would have done this" but without context of everything else happening at the time, it's hard to take it too seriously.

 

With that said, I like a lot of what Markos is saying and many of his moves are defensible, both now and in context of the situation when it happened (mostly his "don't do this" arguments)... But not all of it, particularly the biggest moves he mentioned.

 

And without those big moves, the Twins are still a very, very bad team. I just glanced over the pitching FAs in 2012 and outside of Sanchez and Greinke, they were pretty much all failures.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's my point, though. The Jays' high water mark was 86 wins. No matter which division you play, that's going to miss the playoffs the majority of the time.

 

If you don't like the Jays comp, let's look at an ALC team that takes a similar approach to Toronto: the White Sox. Since winning the WS, their high water mark is 89 games, which earned them a 163 playoff and a quick exit from the postseason. They try to compete every year yet have one (bad) postseason appearance to show for it.

 

The only mid-market team that seems capable of sustaining success is the Cardinals and they might be the most well-run franchise in baseball. For the majority of teams, I believe the ebb and flow approach gives you the best chance of going deep into the postseason.

Whatever problem exists with the Jays and White Sox isn't easily solved by tanking and going full rebuild for 3 seasons.  Those teams have made suspect moves in drafting and trading that have held them back.  Their goal should be to avoid those bad moves, not tank for 3 years to get more opportunities to draft and sell.

 

Would you really have called a meeting after the 2011 season and said, "mid market teams can't sustain success this long, let's blow this sucker up"?  You've got to look at the assets you have, the system you have, the draft position you have guaranteed, the options on the FA market.  If you can get that to a baseline .500 projection within 2 years, while staying within a reasonable budget and still maintaining a strong farm system, how do you not choose that?

[nicksaviking]

 

 

And gaining a lot of value by rebuilding isn't always so easy -- you have to pick the right flyers (Feldman vs Marcum, Kazmir vs. Harden), you have to flip them to the right teams at the right times, and you have to develop those players you receive.  It's actually probably easier and a more likely path to sustained success to focus on signing quality MLB players that can help you like Buehrle, and just sign/draft/trade as best as you can as opportunities present themselves, rather than going out of your way to create those opportunities by tanking for multiple seasons.

 

Those flyers aren't so much of a crap shoot though because pitchers on 1-2 year deals are a lot easier to move than guys on 4-year deals.

 

Signing guys like Buehrle wasn't going to put this team over the top. He's barely a step up over the Santana/Nolasco/Hughes kinds of deals. If the Twins were going to go from rock-bottom with no prospect help to contenders, they would have had to go with the big name free agents on mega contracts.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

 

Would you really have called a meeting after the 2011 season and said, "mid market teams can't sustain success this long, let's blow this sucker up"? 

 

Lot's of fans said they should. Obviously the team didn't want to but that decision wasn't based on long term winning, it was based on putting fans in the seats at all costs. And it still failed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Would you really have called a meeting after the 2011 season and said, "mid market teams can't sustain success this long, let's blow this sucker up"? 

I advocated that approach either after 2011 or some time early in the 2012 season. I wanted to see the Twins start dismantling the team because it was apparent they were going to be bad for awhile.

 

But no, I can't specifically recall if I advocated this approach in 2011.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Possibly not but he's also using a fair amount of hindsight. Sure, the Sanchez signing would have been great but how do you choose that guy and is he even interested? Remember, the Tigers traded for Sanchez and he resigned with the team because he enjoyed Detroit. It appears he mostly ignored the FA market and took a reasonable deal that was probably worth less than he would have received on the open market.

 

The Span deal is another example. It was considered a fair trade at the time but unfortunately, it hasn't panned out for the Twins. Couple the Revere trade and we're getting into a quite revisionist form of history. If the Twins have Span, do the Phillies demand him (probably offering more in the process) and ignore Revere? Remove one key element and we can't expect the same events to cascade into place quite so gracefully.

 

And then Hunter. Yeah, he's a former Twin but does he sign with the team if it's coming off a 75 win season? He was old and knew the Tigers were his last shot at contention.

 

It's easy to look back and say "I would have done this" but without context of everything else happening at the time, it's hard to take it too seriously.

 

With that said, I like a lot of what Markos is saying and many of his moves are defensible, both now and in context of the situation when it happened... But not all of it, particularly the biggest moves he mentioned.

I think Sanchez re-signed with Detroit because they offered the most money.

 

The Span trade wasn't considered bad, but it was not without its doubters.  Trading a controlled asset like that straight-up for a single high-variability pitching prospect in A-ball was a risky rebuilding move.

 

Torii Hunter signed last winter with a 70 win team (us) over an 89 win pennant winner (Royals).  

 

Obviously it's an exercise in hypotheticals, so if you're going to nitpick his answer to this degree, then the question he was asked wasn't valid in the first place.

 

I think extending Hardy, adding Buehrle, then Hunter, and thus keeping Span, doesn't take much hindsight and all follows pretty logically.  With our farm system and 2012 picks, that's a solid foundation.  You can quibble with the later moves and still come out ahead of what we actually did, or what your more aggressive rebuild would have yielded.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I advocated that approach either after 2011 or some time early in the 2012 season. I wanted to see the Twins start dismantling the team because it was apparent they were going to be bad for awhile.

 

But no, I can't specifically recall if I advocated this approach in 2011.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't really asking if you advocated a rebuild.  I was suggesting that you can't really apply a general idea like "mid market teams can't contend that long" to a specific set of circumstances so easily.  The 2011 Twins with Hardy had a decent amount of position player talent, a decent farm system that was likely to get better with the 2012 draft, and not many assets that were easy to move in an aggressive rebuild (Mauer and Morneau weren't going anywhere at that point, Liriano's value was low, even Span only netted one guy, etc.).  I'm not sure you can chuck those facts out the window for a general theory about competitive life cycles.

[Teflon]

The return on investment to an owner of a professional sports franchise isn't derived from the bottom line of the year-to-year operations but in the obscene return on investment in the subsequent sale of the franchise. The average MLB team is worth 1.2 billion dollars. The Twins are probably worth a little less than that- say 900 million. Considering Carl Pohlad paid Calvin Griffith $32 million for controlling interest in 1984 - which correcting for inflation would still only be about $73 million - means that the Twins have earned the Pohlads a 1200% return.

 

The Pohlads also received a (mostly) publicly-funded stadium which coincidentally sits in the middle of a bunch of property they own. It's hard for me to look at the Twins and not see the franchise as a diamond-encrusted golden hot dog stand that gets free government surplus buns, buys day-old wieners and charges customers $2 for a mustard packet. This is why rich people are rich, I guess.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think extending Hardy, adding Buehrle, then Hunter, and thus keeping Span, doesn't take much hindsight and all follows pretty logically.  With our farm system and 2012 picks, that's a solid foundation.  You can quibble with the later moves and still come out ahead of what we actually did, or what your more aggressive rebuild would have yielded.

Many of his moves make sense both today and at the time it happened but without a cornerstone like Sanchez, how many games do the Twins really win? Buerhle is nice and all but he was a 3-ish win player at that point. By the time the prospects are ready (2015), he's on his way out of baseball with a 1 win season.

 

My point isn't that the Twins did everything right - they certainly did not - it's that they were so bad that acquiring even 8-9 player wins (basically combining Buerhle, Hunter, and Span) only puts them in the mid-70s win range.

 

And short of picking up multiple cornerstone players to the tune of $200m+ in overall contracts, that wasn't going to change. Buerhle is nice but he's just a bit better than rearranging deck chairs on those 2012/2013 squads.

[tobi0040]

 

I agree that Park was pretty redundant, but his contract is so cheap he's basically being paid like a bench player. He's a lotto ticket and I'm more than willing to gamble with that power upside.

 

I don't like 3-4 year deals either, but if he's as bad as Nishioka, I have no doubt that the Twins would eat the remaining $6M and DFA'ing him after two years. It's not Twins-like, but it's not unheard of, and besides, it'll be a drop in the bucket compared to what they'll have already eaten having already gotten rid of Nolasco by that time.

 

I agree with you in a sense. If we take a Nishi approach with Park, then I don't mind it at all.  If anything it is a good risk/reward.  But if he is sitting in that just above .700 OPS range and seeing at bats over multiple years because of his contract, then it is a horrible move.

 

The flip side is what success looks like.  If Park averages a .780 OPS for four years, are we going to claim victory and call this a great signing?  I bet we do.   But like I showed, Arcia/Carter platooning could provide about the same numbers without the four year commitment. 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Lot's of fans said they should. Obviously the team didn't want to but that decision wasn't based on long term winning, it was based on putting fans in the seats at all costs. And it still failed.

Actually, I'd say the Twins equivocated after 2011 rather than do anything "at all costs."  They didn't aggressively rebuild, but they didn't really try to notably improve the MLB club either.  Either of those options would have been better than what they actually did.  I just think markos lays out a pretty decent argument for the latter option.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't really asking if you advocated a rebuild.  I was suggesting that you can't really apply a general idea like "mid market teams can't contend that long" to a specific set of circumstances so easily.  The 2011 Twins with Hardy had a decent amount of position player talent, a decent farm system that was likely to get better with the 2012 draft, and not many assets that were easy to move in an aggressive rebuild (Mauer and Morneau weren't going anywhere at that point, Liriano's value was low, even Span only netted one guy, etc.).  I'm not sure you can chuck those facts out the window for a general theory about competitive life cycles.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Let me rephrase:

 

Without the ability to spend your way out of a hole by picking up multiple elite free agent contracts in a 2-3 year window, it's extremely difficult to sustain a competitive team without strength on the farm.

 

And the Twins had little strength in the high minors. And IMO, that's when it's time to pack it in and prepare to lose for awhile.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Actually, I'd say the Twins equivocated after 2011 rather than do anything "at all costs."  They didn't aggressively rebuild, but they didn't really try to notably improve the MLB club either.  Either of those options would have been better than what they actually did.  I just think markos lays out a pretty decent argument for the latter option.

I mostly agree but the Twins were in a very difficult position after the 2011 season. Nearly every player on the roster was massively devalued going into that offseason. Sure, they could have done more (and better), but it was going to be ugly no matter what they did with the team.

 

I can't do anything but shake my head about that 2011 season. The sheer number of injuries and bad performances is staggering. Did anyone other than Cuddyer make it through that season with a decent year?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Many of his moves make sense both today and at the time it happened but without a cornerstone like Sanchez, how many games do the Twins really win? Buerhle is nice and all but he was a 3-ish win player at that point. By the time the prospects are ready (2015), he's on his way out of baseball with a 1 win season.

An aside: I don't always understand B-Ref pitcher WAR.  How is Buehrle's 2015 season worth 0.9 WAR, and his 2013 season worth 2.1 WAR?  Unearned runs, opponent quality, park factor... factors worth considering but hard to pin down with any confidence.  I wouldn't be so confident that Buehrle's 2015 was only a 1 win season.

 

 

My point isn't that the Twins did everything right - they certainly did not - it's that they were so bad that acquiring even 8-9 player wins (basically combining Buerhle, Hunter, and Span) only puts them in the mid-70s win range..

 

Those plus extending Hardy are 4 easy, affordable moves, though.  And if that gets you to a baseline projection of 75 wins, plus one of the top farm systems in the game, that's a pretty good situation.  Arguably gives you more options for benefit than a tear-down rebuild -- you can still gamble with guys like Feldman or Kazmir, but now your potential benefit isn't limited to selling them, with a little luck they could push you to a playoff berth.  And you are good enough to take advantage of a potential buyer's market at the deadline too, like the Tigers did to the Marlins in 2012.

 

You downgrade from Stewart, Gordon, and Jay to mid-teens first round picks in 2013-2015, and maybe you forfeit one of those picks if you indeed land a bigger FA like Martin.  Not really a huge cost for the added potential benefits/flexibility.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

An aside: I don't always understand B-Ref pitcher WAR.  How is Buehrle's 2015 season worth 0.9 WAR, and his 2013 season worth 2.1 WAR?  Unearned runs, opponent quality, park factor... factors worth considering but hard to pin down with any confidence.  I wouldn't be so confident that Buehrle's 2015 was only a 1 win season.

A fair point on Buerhle. I was being lazy and didn't feel like referencing both WAR numbers. Still, the general point stands in my eyes. The Twins could have made several good moves but unless they spend big and hit on every move, they're still a very bad team.

 

And if competitiveness hinges on being right 100% of the time, IMO it's a better idea to wipe the board clean and start anew. I'm not saying Markos' (or your) strategy can't work, I simply believe my strategy has a higher probability of working in the long run.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Let me rephrase:

 

Without the ability to spend your way out of a hole by picking up multiple elite free agent contracts in a 2-3 year window, it's extremely difficult to sustain a competitive team without strength on the farm.

 

And the Twins had little strength in the high minors. And IMO, that's when it's time to pack it in and prepare to lose for awhile.

This seems a little revisionist.  Sure, the Twins didn't have elite guys like Sano, Buxton, or Berrios in the high minors after 2011, but they had Gibson (albeit delayed by TJS), they had Hicks, Benson, Parmelee, Dozier, even Plouffe dominated AAA in 2011 and looked like a decent utility guy.

 

Plus, at the MLB level, they had Mauer, Morneau, Hardy (assuming extension), Span, Revere, plus they were adding Willingham and Doumit.  That's a solid lineup with very good upside.  Pitching was obviously worse, but adding Buehrle would have done wonders for that starting staff, and at that point, I'd argue re-signing Nathan (2/14) would have affordably fit in the strategy than re-signing Capps (1/4.5).

 

Dumping Hardy for nothing prior to 2011 hurt a ton, as did basically doubling down on the shaky 2011 pitching staff for 2012.  markos's scenario avoids both of those fairly obvious pitfalls, and thus presents a far less dire situation going into 2012.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And if competitiveness hinges on being right 100% of the time, IMO it's a better idea to wipe the board clean and start anew. I'm not saying Markos' (or your) strategy can't work, I simply believe my strategy has a higher probability of working in the long run.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying if you can confidently project around 75-80 wins, competitiveness is an option with good luck.  Your median projection is middling, but you have a meaningful best-case scenario which isn't without value.  That's not really possible with a tear-down rebuild, once you're down to 60-65 wins, good luck only gets you to 75 wins, which is fairly worthless as a best-case scenario.

 

And a projected 75-80 win team can still take flyers and flip assets for prospects as needed too, that's not an exclusive benefit of a torn-down rebuilding team.  Unless you have an asset to sell immediately for a massive prospect haul (which the Twins did not in 2011), the rebuilding path basically gets you a few extra top 10 protected draft picks vs. mid-teens potentially forfeited draft picks.  With the 2012 draft order already in place, I'd gladly trade down in the 2013-2015 drafts for a chance at contention (with good luck) each year.

[drjim]

I'll add a couple thoughts on this:

 

1. Sanchez seems like a bizarre example to cite. He has two years left on his deal on big money and significant health concerns right now. Good enough to keep running out there and pencil in the rotation, but unlikely to be especially good or even make it through the season. Exactly the wrong type of asset to have on the squad right now, as Nolasco (for example) is showing. A few more wins in 13 and 14 would not have been worth the problem right now.

 

2. The Twins actually did make a run at Buehrle, but the Marlins beat them. I suspect the 4 years was the issue.

 

3. I generally agree that they were hamstrung a little after 2011, they were locked into players that had significantly devalued, but did have some reason to believe might bounce back - so couldn't trade but also didn't make a ton of sense to replace. They did sign some position players to fill the holes outside of these assets, but they really shot low on the rotation addition (Marquis) and the bullpen flyer, which I thought was a good risk, blew out in spring training (Zumaya).

 

As a side note, I wonder if the Zumaya experiment turned them off from future signings of the same ilk - which was a mistake if true.