Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

I actually like Sanchez inclusion -- it shows that the author wasn't cherry picking or relying too much on hindsight.  If Sanchez was still owed 2/34, but we didn't have Nolasco at 2/25, I don't see a big problem.

 

 

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

 

Interesting note.  Sounds like the Twins offer was pretty weak, though (which makes sense given our next pitching moves were Marquis, then Correia and Pelfrey the next offseason):

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/mark-buehrle-rumors-monday.html

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

I hope not.  They only bet $850k on Zumaya, and at least he blew out his elbow promptly and didn't drag things out.  It's not like, say, the Padres' Josh Johnson deal ($8 mil for nothing).

 

They also got Harden the following winter, although his timetable always seemed like he was a pretty big longshot.  I really wanted Kazmir that winter, he had big question marks too but at least he was throwing for teams that winter.  Harden seemed more like the recent Johan comebacks, he was always planning to throw / return to game action at some undetermined future date...

[dxpavelka]

 

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.

May HAS proven he can get big league hitters out, something neither Berrios nor Meyer has done.  Granted, Berrios has not had the opportunity.  Regardless until one of them comes up and actually performs he's a hell of a lot closer to being an ace than either one of them.  It is also highly unlikely that anyone who will leave Florida as a member of the rotation has a better chance of being an ace either.  As far as Berrios & Meyer are concerned, I'd have no issue with the two of them and May being part of our rotation by the end of this season and for many years beyond.  As far as who gets to be considered the "ace", it's all just semantics anyway, let them decide that over the next 5-10 years on the field.

[drjim]

 

I hope not.  They only bet $850k on Zumaya, and at least he blew out his elbow promptly and didn't drag things out.  It's not like, say, the Padres' Josh Johnson deal ($8 mil for nothing).

 

They also got Harden the following winter, although his timetable always seemed like he was a pretty big longshot.  I really wanted Kazmir that winter, he had big question marks too but at least he was throwing for teams that winter.  Harden seemed more like the recent Johan comebacks, he was always planning to throw / return to game action at some undetermined future date...

 

I hope not too, but even more than the money options (eating salary for a better prospect in trade, taking on bad contract to acquire other assets) signing so few flyer arms since 2012 is something that really bothered me about the rebuild.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The original poster was specifically requesting people to use hindsight. So why is Anibal Sanchez suddenly not valid?

[drjim]

 

The original poster was specifically requesting people to use hindsight. So why is Anibal Sanchez suddenly not valid?

 

Sanchez is absolutely valid to have signed, but currently shows the consequence of why signing him would not have been ideal for the franchise.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sanchez is absolutely valid to have signed, but currently shows the consequence of why signing him would not have been ideal for the franchise.

 

if you aren't willing to have "dead money" basically, you have to practically admit you will never sign a free agent. Also, that you will never sign your own players to long term deals to keep them past their FA time frame. No team does that and wins. Teams build the core thru draft, trade, development, and fill the holes with free agents.

 

*those are some terrible sentences, I hope my points are clear.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

What mike said. Sanchez has pitched pretty good compared to other Twins free agents over this time.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Sanchez is absolutely valid to have signed, but currently shows the consequence of why signing him would not have been ideal for the franchise.

I don't think original poster claimed there were no consequences.

 

We weren't in an ideal position in 2011.  We didn't turn in ideal performances from 2012-2014 either.  The guys we did eventually sign are less than ideal too.  There would be greatly non-ideal aspects to a complete tear-down and rebuild approach as advocated by others.

 

Sanchez's 2013-2015 performances, with 2/34 remaining, might actually be the most "ideal" (or least non-ideal, if you prefer) option of the bunch.

[drjim]

if you aren't willing to have "dead money" basically, you have to practically admit you will never sign a free agent. Also, that you will never sign your own players to long term deals to keep them past their FA time frame. No team does that and wins. Teams build the core thru draft, trade, development, and fill the holes with free agents.

 

*those are some terrible sentences, I hope my points are clear.

The dead money should be at the back end or after the competitive window, not right as it opens up.

 

That, in my mind, is the crux of this debate. Is it worth more wins during years the team is not making the playoffs to have more money tied into diminishing players as the competitive window is opening up?

 

Sanchez is the perfect illustration of why partaking in free agency as aggresively as was suggested is not a great strategy. Doesn't mean you don't sign anyone, but you should be hesitant to increase big money into a player before the team is ready.

 

For the record, this is year they should have went big, but the Twins might also be locked into too many free agent contracts.

[drjim]

What mike said. Sanchez has pitched pretty good compared to other Twins free agents over this time.

Agreed. But who cares in 13-14? And last year he was mediocre and got hurt and will likely be hurt off and on the next two years.

[drjim]

I don't think original poster claimed there were no consequences.

 

We weren't in an ideal position in 2011. We didn't turn in ideal performances from 2012-2014 either. The guys we did eventually sign are less than ideal too. There would be greatly non-ideal aspects to a complete tear-down and rebuild approach as advocated by others.

 

Sanchez's 2013-2015 performances, with 2/34 remaining, might actually be the most "ideal" (or least non-ideal, if you prefer) option of the bunch.

15 wasn't that good, and 13-14 would have been meaningless, especially with the likely consequence of the next two years.

[gopherman23]

If Pohlad was serious about winning he would be willing to spend more. He doesn't care though. He is one of the richer owners in baseball and the Twins have been making pretty good profits the last 5 years:

 

2014: $21.3 million- Highest profit of 4 major sports teams in MN

2013: $30.2 million- #6 in baseball

2012: $10.8 million

2011: $16.8 million- #15 in baseball

2010: $26.5 million

 

Even though the Twins were terrible from 2011-2014 Pohlad still made a nice profit. Also, the Forbes valuation of the Twins, prior to the start of 2011 season, was $490 million. Prior the start of last season the Twins were valued at $895 million and I would bet that valuation will top $1 billion in the next year or two. Jim Pohlad is laughing all the way to the bank, while we sit here watching a mediocre product that he refuses to go out and try to improve.

[drjim]

 

If Pohlad was serious about winning he would be willing to spend more. He doesn't care though. He is one of the richer owners in baseball and the Twins have been making pretty good profits the last 5 years:

2014: $21.3 million- Highest profit of 4 major sports teams in MN
2013: $30.2 million- #6 in baseball
2012: $10.8 million
2011: $16.8 million- #15 in baseball
2010: $26.5 million

Even though the Twins were terrible from 2011-2014 Pohlad still made a nice profit. Also, the Forbes valuation of the Twins, prior to the start of 2011 season, was $490 million. Prior the start of last season the Twins were valued at $895 million and I would bet that valuation will top $1 billion in the next year or two. Jim Pohlad is laughing all the way to the bank, while we sit here watching a mediocre product that he refuses to go out and try to improve.

 

This topic has been beat to death multiple times, but the easy response is that if the Twins were better, even with a higher payroll, Pohlad would be making significantly more money.

 

And I am highly skeptical of any measure that doesn't have the nfl team making the most money, but that is a minor digression.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Agreed. But who cares in 13-14? And last year he was mediocre and got hurt and will likely be hurt off and on the next two years.

I concede that I can't find a scenario where the Twins make a deep postseason run in those seasons (which is an understatement), but there are other guys on the payroll like Hunter who might have improved the team and maybe made it somewhat exciting. Though maybe Hunter didn't purchase his smoke machine until this season? Edited February 23, 2016 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[Mike Sixel]

I don't begrudge them making money. I want them to make money. I want the team to be successful on and off the field.

 

But, when they are competitive, I want them to fill the holes with difference makers, who will likely cost money/prospects. 

[Vanimal46]

 

If Pohlad was serious about winning he would be willing to spend more. He doesn't care though. He is one of the richer owners in baseball and the Twins have been making pretty good profits the last 5 years:

2014: $21.3 million- Highest profit of 4 major sports teams in MN
2013: $30.2 million- #6 in baseball
2012: $10.8 million
2011: $16.8 million- #15 in baseball
2010: $26.5 million

Even though the Twins were terrible from 2011-2014 Pohlad still made a nice profit. Also, the Forbes valuation of the Twins, prior to the start of 2011 season, was $490 million. Prior the start of last season the Twins were valued at $895 million and I would bet that valuation will top $1 billion in the next year or two. Jim Pohlad is laughing all the way to the bank, while we sit here watching a mediocre product that he refuses to go out and try to improve.

The Pohlad's, hell most every owner in sports minus Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban, aren't the ones pounding the pavement to improve their teams. That's the job of the GM... So you may be putting your frustrations towards the wrong person. 

I'm just as frustrated as anyone here that there seems to be a budget put in place that the GM can't go over. At the end of the day, it's the constraints we have to live with as fans as long as a Pohlad owns this club. 

There's a couple of guarantees in life: death, taxes, Jeffrey Loria having a fire sale every 5 years, the Cleveland Browns being awful at football, and the Twins having a set payroll budget. 

[drjim]

 

I concede that I can't find a scenario where the Twins make a deep postseason run in those seasons (which is an understatement), but there are other guys on the payroll like Hunter who might have improved the team and maybe made it somewhat exciting. Though maybe Hunter didn't purchase his smoke machine until this season?

 

Why would Hunter have signed with the Twins in 13? He was going for a title opportunity.

 

My one quibble with the alternative plan offered is that it is a little disingenuous to say they would get free agents to sign elsewhere to sign with the Twins. Wouldn't work that way, good rule of thumb is one more year and 10% increase to annual salary, but that is also a little bit of a minor digression.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

15 wasn't that good, and 13-14 would have been meaningless, especially with the likely consequence of the next two years.

Not necessarily meaningless, given the entire hypothetical.  With Sanchez, Buehrle, Hardy, etc., 2013-2014 could have seen us contending not unlike 2015.  That has value.  And the 2/34 left on his hypothetical deal wouldn't hurt us any more than the 2/25 left on Nolasco's.  And he's not without hope to salvage some more value yet, he hasn't missed a lot of time due to the shoulder yet, and he managed a league-average xFIP and SIERA in 2015 -- he was pretty much sunk by 29 HR allowed.

 

He'd probably be a better bounceback candidate to put at the back of the rotation now than Nolasco, with Berrios waiting to step in.  If that's the price paid for something resembling relevance in 2013-2014, so be it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Why would Hunter have signed with the Twins in 13? He was going for a title opportunity.

 

My one quibble with the alternative plan offered is that it is a little disingenuous to say they would get free agents to sign elsewhere to sign with the Twins. Wouldn't work that way, good rule of thumb is one more year and 10% increase to annual salary, but that is also a little bit of a minor digression.

Why did Hunter sign here last year, instead of pennant winner KC?  I think he could have made the same calculation in 2013, especially if we were coming off a ~75 win season with Buehrle, Sanchez, Hardy, etc. rather than having Vance Worley, opening day starter.

 

I thought the alternative plan author did a pretty solid job of keeping it in the ballpark of realism.  As far as hypotheticals go, it's one of the best I've seen.  He didn't have us landing Greinke, or finding Arrieta, etc.

[drjim]

 

Why did Hunter sign here last year, instead of pennant winner KC?  I think he could have made the same calculation in 2013, especially if we were coming off a ~75 win season with Buehrle, Sanchez, Hardy, etc. rather than having Vance Worley, opening day starter.

 

I thought the alternative plan author did a pretty solid job of keeping it in the ballpark of realism.  As far as hypotheticals go, it's one of the best I've seen.  He didn't have us landing Greinke, or finding Arrieta, etc.

 

He had different incentives in 13 vs. 15, including money.

 

I'm not criticizing the plan per se, very reasonable (if not how I would do it), the contract structure issue is a small quibble.

[old nurse]

 

Didn't we anyway?

 

And yes, Hughes was a much better upside move.  I completely agree.  It was one of the best FA signings the Twins could have done that year and I applauded them for it.

 

But Correia?  That signing remains indefensible because it had no upside.

In a pack full of mutt pitchers he was above average.  As an alternative to Duensing, Swarzak, Blackburn, et al it would be an improvement.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In a pack full of mutt pitchers he was above average.  As an alternative to Duensing, Swarzak, Blackburn, et al it would be an improvement.

 

Except he wasn't.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Fantastic post but my feeling is go scorched earth rebuild or go big in free agency, don't half-ass it.

 

If with a straight face you can look at 2012-14 and say the Twins needed to spend real big to not be a really poor team, why can't you look at 2015 and say, if they had put good dough into 2 relief pitchers in the offseason they would have had a real shot at the playoffs? What's the threshold for hindsight 20/20 rule? I think you could repeat that meme again in 2016

[markos]

 

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.

Wiping the board clean has its own risks and challenges. I definitely go back and forth with the different strategies. It is easy to look at the Cubs, Astros and Rays and think that a tear down and rebuild only takes 2-3 years, but the Pirates had 5 losing seasons under Neil Huntington before they had a season above .500, and the Royals had 6 under Dayton Moore. If you were the GM of the Twins after the 2012 season and you are committed to wiping the board clean, what is your target seasons to get back into contention? 2016 2017? Maybe even 2018? What do you do with the late emergence of Dozier, Plouffe and Perkins? If your target season to get back into contention is, let's say, 2017, do you hang on to them even though they will all be leaving their primes? 

 

I'm mostly just thinking outloud here, so don't think that I'm against rebuilding. I have, at times, definitely been a strong advocate of the total rebuild like you suggest, so don't hold it against me if I argue for rebuilding in a different thread at a later date. I just feel like the last year changed my perspective as a fan a little bit. Maybe it has been all the losing, but it was shockingly fun to actually care about the results of the team for the entire season. It has definitely made me reconsider the value of just muddling along as a .500 team. Though I'm sure that would get old after a while, too!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Wiping the board clean has its own risks and challenges. I definitely go back and forth with the different strategies. It is easy to look at the Cubs, Astros and Rays and think that a tear down and rebuild only takes 2-3 years, but the Pirates had 5 losing seasons under Neil Huntington before they had a season above .500, and the Royals had 6 under Dayton Moore. If you were the GM of the Twins after the 2012 season and you are committed to wiping the board clean, what is your target seasons to get back into contention? 2016 2017? Maybe even 2018? What do you do with the late emergence of Dozier, Plouffe and Perkins? If your target season to get back into contention is, let's say, 2017, do you hang on to them even though they will all be leaving their primes?

Well, the Twins were in a somewhat peculiar situation. They went from 94 wins to 99 losses in a season. They also had some promising youngsters who were a few years away in Arcia, Sano, Gibson, etc. That makes it easier to speed up the timeline back to competitiveness, as you have something in the system that should arrive before any of your high draft picks (as it turns out, Berrios and Buxton flew through the system so that worked out well).

 

I suppose a target of 2015 was reasonable under those circumstances.

 

The Royals and Pirates aren't really comparable. Moore was a bad GM for some time. He did a lot of dumb things and the Royals stumbled for a long time because of it.

 

And IIRC, Huntington inherited an abysmal farm system. For obvious reasons, that's going to slow the timeline.

[markos]

 

The dead money should be at the back end or after the competitive window, not right as it opens up.

That, in my mind, is the crux of this debate. Is it worth more wins during years the team is not making the playoffs to have more money tied into diminishing players as the competitive window is opening up?

Sanchez is the perfect illustration of why partaking in free agency as aggresively as was suggested is not a great strategy. Doesn't mean you don't sign anyone, but you should be hesitant to increase big money into a player before the team is ready.

For the record, this is year they should have went big, but the Twins might also be locked into too many free agent contracts.

I think there is a decent argument that if you are going to have money tied to diminishing players, the best time is as the competitive window is opening up. The Twins maximum payroll flexibility should be the next three years, where the production-to-dollars ratio for Sano, Buxton, Berrios, Duffey, Rosario, Kepler, et al is a its absolute highest. Maybe Sanchez was a little too early for this window, but I'd definitely argue that going after Russell Martin a year ago certainly would not have been. And as my little exercise (surprisingly, at least to me) showed, the payroll situation right now between my moves and the status quo is practically zero. It is just as easy to clog payroll with multiple small moves as it is with a handful a big moves, and the small moves have the added downside of clogging the roster as well.

[markos]

 

Well, the Twins were in a somewhat peculiar situation. They went from 94 wins to 99 losses in a season. They also had some promising youngsters who were a few years away in Arcia, Sano, Gibson, etc. That makes it easier to speed up the timeline back to competitiveness, as you have something in the system that should arrive before any of your high draft picks (as it turns out, Berrios and Buxton flew through the system so that worked out well).

 

I suppose a target of 2015 was reasonable under those circumstances.

 

The Royals and Pirates aren't really comparable. Moore was a bad GM for some time. He did a lot of dumb things and the Royals stumbled for a long time because of it.

 

And IIRC, Huntington inherited an abysmal farm system. For obvious reasons, that's going to slow the timeline.

That is an interesting answer, and way more optimistic than I would have been back then. Do you think that is the norm? Like that a team should only be bad for basically 4 years before being good again, or something went wrong? I think if I was put in that position at the end of the 2012 season and asked to tear down and rebuild, I would have promised 2016 as the earliest, but maybe 2017. Basically 2 seasons to tear-down and acquire talent, and then a year or two for that new talent to take its lumps in the majors. And Dozier, Plouffe and Perkins would all have been traded away.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That is an interesting answer, and way more optimistic than I would have been back then. Do you think that is the norm? Like that a team should only be bad for basically 4 years before being good again, or something went wrong? I think if I was put in that position at the end of the 2012 season and asked to tear down and rebuild, I would have promised 2016 as the earliest, but maybe 2017. Basically 2 seasons to tear-down and acquire talent, and then a year or two for that new talent to take its lumps in the majors. And Dozier, Plouffe and Perkins would all have been traded away.

I think 4-5 years is reasonable. I believe the Astros required five, the Cubs four, and the Pirates six.

[bird]

 

I think there is a decent argument that if you are going to have money tied to diminishing players, the best time is as the competitive window is opening up. The Twins maximum payroll flexibility should be the next three years, where the production-to-dollars ratio for Sano, Buxton, Berrios, Duffey, Rosario, Kepler, et al is a its absolute highest. Maybe Sanchez was a little too early for this window, but I'd definitely argue that going after Russell Martin a year ago certainly would not have been. And as my little exercise (surprisingly, at least to me) showed, the payroll situation right now between my moves and the status quo is practically zero. It is just as easy to clog payroll with multiple small moves as it is with a handful a big moves, and the small moves have the added downside of clogging the roster as well.

 

 

Wow. I have to say this has been perhaps the most impressive exchange on the subject of "payroll" I've observed on TD. Great and insightful (as opposed to inciteful) contributions by a large group, so thank you markos, Brock, drjim, spycake, Mike, et al.

 

The debate reinforces a few things for me. One, there is more than one "reasonable" or "right" way to skin the cat. Second, it's not an easy job to claw your way out of a hole. Markos, your plan is so well thought out and reasonable, but even so, we have to concede that in real time, some of the moves may have been undoable, and perhaps the alternative move would not have been as fortuitous as, say, Sanchez. GM's aren't going to bat 100% and they have zero benefit of hindsight.

 

A third thing that gets reinforced for me, is that the relationship between some incremental spending and the two presumed benefits are really nebulous and sketchy. One presumed benefit is a few extra wins. The second presumed benefit would potentially be a higher level of fan satisfaction based on those few extra wins. I'm not convinced much of the discussion on these TD threads would have changed a great deal if Markos's plan had been Terry Ryan's  plan. (The Bill Smith mistakes are another matter entirely). 

 

One of the things I find impressive about the Markos Plan is the low level of dead money that would reduce flexibility in 2017 and beyond, This particular subject alone, I believe, is at the heart of things when we find ourselves in an irreconcilable argument about spending. When one argument accepts the notion that some budget number should be recognized as acceptable and another person wants to ignore the concept or rant about the Pohlads, we usually have a pissing match on our hands.

 

Thanks for the great thread gentlemen.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by birdwatcher