Article: Arizona's Cautionary Tale

[Don Walcott]

 

 

Interestingly, the Dodgers likely bid more for Johnson, but he chose Arizona instead:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/03/free-agent-retrospective-randy-johnson.html

 

As compared to Greinke, where it sounds like Arizona had to over-bid to get him.

 

Also, looking back, the Diamondbacks got Schilling pretty cheaply in trade (I don't recall his contract situation, though).  Travis Lee was busting, Omar Daal had a 7.22 ERA at the time, and Nelson Figueroa was a journeyman in the making.  Vicente Padilla turned out to be an OK rotation piece for a few seasons but was hardly anything worth losing sleep over.

 

Nothing like the Shelby Miller deal, really.  (Additionally, although Schilling was older, he had a much better track record than Miller.  Johnson was older but better than Greinke too.)

Johnson was among the highest paid players with the D-Backs, for six years, starting at 35-yrs-old.  That was a risk.  Schilling had been good for a few years, had a wasteland for a few years, and then was good again for a few years.  Nobody could have anticipated how well he did for the D-Backs.  He was paid $6.5 million 2001, then $10 million the next two years.  Schill was 34 when they signed him.  Both were big risks and huge rewards. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Johnson was among the highest paid players with the D-Backs, for six years, starting at 35-yrs-old. That was a risk. Schilling had been good for a few years, had a wasteland for a few years, and then was good again for a few years. Nobody could have anticipated how well he did for the D-Backs. He was paid $6.5 million 2001, then $10 million the next two years. Schill was 34 when they signed him. Both were big risks and huge rewards.

Johnson's original deal with Arizona was only 4 years with an option. And from my link, the Dodgers outbid them, and a few other teams matched them. Not without risk at his age, but not really comparable to the Greinke situation, where Arizona had to outbid everyone for a longer term (and for a lesser pitcher, albeit a few years younger).

 

And Schilling wasn't that big of a risk when you consider all that they had to give up in trade was mostly suspects rather than prospects. Not really comparable to the Shelby Miller deal at all. (Schilling's salary at the time wasn't cheap, but it wasn't that notable -- for some context, consider that Radke signed a 4/36 deal the same year Schilling was traded to Arizona.)

Edited September 7, 2016 by spycake

[Darius]

So what about all the cautionary tales of teams that dont spend money on quality players and only try to work players out of their own system? The Pirates for about 50 years comes to mind. The Twins since the early ninties. Many many more.

 

Then, there are all the inspirational tales of the teams that have purchased championships, and have basically held an oligopoly over major league baseball since the late 90s.

 

Pointing at an outlier here or there and saying youre doomed with big free agents is misguided. Its much more rare to win a championship as a small market team near the bottom of the league in payroll every year.

 

Hindsight on Grienke is 20/20, and he still may rebound. You have Grienke in one hand, in the other there is Sherzer, Hamels, Kershaw, Cueto, and Strasburg. You cant tell me going out and trying put one the leagues most dominant starters at the front end of your rotation is ever a bad idea.

 

How has the middling-bargain barrel rotation paradigm worked out for the Twins over the years? There are infinitely more horror stories on that end of the spectrum.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Darius

[Rosterman]

Well, first off, you are going to have a high draft pick.

 

Next, you have to look at who will contribute to the 2017 Twins and at what cost.

 

You have to look realistic at the farm system and see who is in line to come onboard first parttime and then fulltime in 2018 and 2019. You have to further look at your depth beyond and who you can keep or use as tradechips. Do you need, say, both Weil and Diaz, or at some point is one a popular prospect to trade.

 

You look at your budget limitations and how much you can afford to writeoff each season. This season, the Twins have basically written off Hughes and Perkins and Plouffe. They did a swapout of Nolasco. They spent a lot of money in one full shot on Park (although they probably are spreading that out). They lost money on Jepsen, Fien and Milone, the final two should've never been resigned.

 

You are always going to writeoff salary in bad contracts or the disabled list.

 

You have to look at Mauer and what he gets paid as outside of the spectrum. It was basic public relations for a franchise player to serve the franchise at one moment. 

 

You have to be willing to gamble.

 

But you realistically have to look at each and every play and evaluate where they sit in the organization, the opportunity you will give them, try to predict the results of the willingness and ableness of the coaches to work and improve the player.

 

I mean, if Ploufe is your answer at third and you want to sign him for three years and an option, keep Dozier around for two more after 2018, be happy with Park for the next four years, believe you can work in Palka or Walker...then go ahead and trade Sano. If you can't work with Buxton, let him join the ranks of former centerfielders and make Granite your new guy until Kril comes up. Is your rotation Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Stewart, Jay etc.......or do you earmark $25-40 million a year for one or two bodies, or $10-12 for an end of the rotation.

 

You want to think Ryan and Company have been doing this. But suddenly a prospect rich organization has no one NOT on the current roster a real prospect for next year. I would disagree on that and say there are 5-6 guys who could jump AAA and play more often than not on the Twins next season. They will be terrible for the most part, but they will play and play hard and learn and probably be just as good in 2018 or 2019 than if they wait and come up for the first time in those seasons. Sure, they may cost a bit more down the way, but between this season and another rebuilding year next year we get even more draft picks to take their place 5-6 years down the road.

 

And, quite frankly, the wins and their 55% is hogwash. It was 55% when they had a $50 million payroll. Now they have $110. What are they spending $100 million on that they were spending $45 million on before? Tell me? Not to mention WHAT is the real revenue figure the team each season from the cash rich Target Field? 

[FargoFanMan]

I don't agree that the twins should go out and spend 200 million on a 31 or even a 29 year old FA pitcher. I do agree that when the time is right adding that veteran Cliff Lee/Sabathia type to help a playoff push. Trade those prospects to give the team some life late in the season rather than hope for a brighter future. The Twins never pulled that trigger in the 2000's and we never made it anywhere but watching the other team advance in the playoffs. I agree we should never commit a big contract to a pitcher but a trade in season when the time is right. I wish we had done that. The future never became brighter and here we are the better part of a decade later wondering where this team is even going. The prospects never led to anything and neither did the free agents. That's how it seems to go.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't agree that the twins should go out and spend 200 million on a 31 or even a 29 year old FA pitcher. I do agree that when the time is right adding that veteran Cliff Lee/Sabathia type to help a playoff push. Trade those prospects to give the team some life late in the season rather than hope for a brighter future. The Twins never pulled that trigger in the 2000's and we never made it anywhere but watching the other team advance in the playoffs. I agree we should never commit a big contract to a pitcher but a trade in season when the time is right. I wish we had done that. The future never became brighter and here we are the better part of a decade later wondering where this team is even going. The prospects never led to anything and neither did the free agents. That's how it seems to go.

 

You'd rather give up players than money? The team has plenty of revenue, when winning, to have a payroll north of $115 to 125MM....

[mazeville]

 

I disagree.  I think you go after top free agents when they are available, and you assume that you can put together a contending team around them.  Again, the D-Backs went out and got the Big Unit, and then put together a contending team.  There are no great free agent pitchers available this offseason, so we don't have to worry about this part of the discussion for another year or two.  I guess the Twins will try to trade for pitching.  But with no free agents on the market, I'm not sure who is going to be trading away the quality of pitchers we would want.

 

Absolutely not. Name one team that successfully did that and I will name 10 that did the exact opposite. So I guess here I go: The Chicago Cubs this year; the 1990s Yankees; early 2000s Twins; Kansas City Royals; current Cleveland Indians; current Boston Red Sox; current Houston Astros; 1990s Cleveland Indians; 2011 St. Louis Cardinals; 2012 San Francisco Giants.

 

In each of those cases they developed their own players and made key trades and, in some but not all cases, signed free agents to supplement their rosters. That is, by far, the best way to build a team. You don't just go out, throw $200 million at a pitcher, and expect to contend next year. You need a LOT of players to build a successful team.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Absolutely not. Name one team that successfully did that and I will name 10 that did the exact opposite. So I guess here I go: The Chicago Cubs this year; the 1990s Yankees; early 2000s Twins; Kansas City Royals; current Cleveland Indians; current Boston Red Sox; current Houston Astros; 1990s Cleveland Indians; 2011 St. Louis Cardinals; 2012 San Francisco Giants.

 

In each of those cases they developed their own players and made key trades and, in some but not all cases, signed free agents to supplement their rosters. That is, by far, the best way to build a team. You don't just go out, throw $200 million at a pitcher, and expect to contend next year. You need a LOT of players to build a successful team.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that signing 1 player is going to fix the world.....I think some are arguing that NOT signing expensive FAs is cutting off one way to acquire players.

 

For me, if the team is bad, and they have lots of money, I don't see the general harm in signing a FA. He probably won't turn the team around, but unless he is blocking a young player......it probably isn't an issue for most teams to sign high priced players. Now, it can later create salary constraints, but that's about planning and resource allocation and being willing to trade players and lots of stuff.....Nothing about having Mauer on this roster prevents them from spending more money. It is how the money is spent that matters.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with this, btw. But, it is where I sit.

[wsnydes]

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that signing 1 player is going to fix the world.....I think some are arguing that NOT signing expensive FAs is cutting off one way to acquire players.

 

For me, if the team is bad, and they have lots of money, I don't see the general harm in signing a FA. He probably won't turn the team around, but unless he is blocking a young player......it probably isn't an issue for most teams to sign high priced players. Now, it can later create salary constraints, but that's about planning and resource allocation and being willing to trade players and lots of stuff.....Nothing about having Mauer on this roster prevents them from spending more money. It is how the money is spent that matters.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with this, btw. But, it is where I sit.

Even with big FA signings, it's more about how efficiently the money is spent.  Even if a crap team signs an expensive FA, that player turns into an asset that can then be dealt if need be.  The issue that comes into play when you make a really bad FA signing that cannot be moved because the poor contract inhibits a trade.  Nolasco is a perfect example of this.  This teams issue hasn't necessarily been spending money, it's whom the money was spent on.  Yes, some deals work out and others do not.  Especially in the FA market, exposure to risk is the key element.  Higher payroll teams can have a higher tolerance for that risk because they have the cash flow to cover for it.  Less payroll teams do not have that luxury and have to be much more careful.

 

I think with this team, signing a FA is fine, it's trading of prospects that I'm more concerned about.  Now is not the time to do that.  Get back to a .500ish team, then start filling holes with organization depth.  That's what the Cubs and Royals have done recently with great success.

Edited September 8, 2016 by wsnydes

[mazeville]

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that signing 1 player is going to fix the world.....I think some are arguing that NOT signing expensive FAs is cutting off one way to acquire players.

 

For me, if the team is bad, and they have lots of money, I don't see the general harm in signing a FA. He probably won't turn the team around, but unless he is blocking a young player......it probably isn't an issue for most teams to sign high priced players. Now, it can later create salary constraints, but that's about planning and resource allocation and being willing to trade players and lots of stuff.....Nothing about having Mauer on this roster prevents them from spending more money. It is how the money is spent that matters.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with this, btw. But, it is where I sit.

 

The comment I was responding to said you sign a free agent and then built around that FA. That's backwards. You build a team and then sign a FA. 

 

You want to devote as much roster space to young, inexpensive players when you're not good to see whether some of those guys can work out and to ensure you get better draft positions to get good players.

 

Spending a lot of money on a single player for a bad team can give that team a couple of wins that won't help it make the playoffs while hurting draft position and reducing the budget teams get for international free agents. And it blocks those young players.

 

Joe Mauer has not gotten the Twins into the playoffs in the past six years. His contract is not hurting the team necessarily. But he is taking up a first base slot that could have been used for Kennys Vargas or Miguel Sano. (I'm a big Mauer fan, by the way and have no problem with the contract he signed given his performance in 2009 and the team's position; this is just an example.)

 

Mauer had 5.3 WAR in 2013. Had he been placed with a 2 WAR player the Twins would have drafted 3rd in 2014 instead of 5th and could have had Carlos Rodon or Kyle Schwarber instead of Nick Gordon. No guarantee the team drafts them, but draft position MATTERS. And going into 2013, the Twins were going to be terrible.

 

More to the point, free agents are typically older, meaning that in the time it takes that aforementioned bad team to start gelling, said FA might well be past his prime and not as effective. It's inefficient spending. So building "around" those free agents is just backwards. You get the team to the point where the free agents can take it to the next level. That's what the Cubs did.

 

So yes, it does hurt teams to sign big free agents when they're bad. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

The comment I was responding to said you sign a free agent and then built around that FA. That's backwards. You build a team and then sign a FA. 

......

 

So yes, it does hurt teams to sign big free agents when they're bad. 

 

There are some awesome points in this post, and it was very polite. Thank you.

 

I agree with pretty much all of that, really. 

 

The one part I don't agree with....is that not signing FAs is part of why bad teams are bad. They have decided (probably correctly) that they should wait 3-5 years to be good....and will build slowly thru the draft (and, for teams not named the Twins, Cubans or expensive Japanese players) and thru the international amateur lines. I have no issue with that decision at all. It is generally the correct decision.

 

OTOH......If a bad team signs the best FA every year for three years......it is certainly possible to speed up the process, though you'd have to be very lucky/skilled, to pick the right player(s).

 

Frankly, imo, a bad team should sign highly variable players to low/mid 1 year make good deals, and then when they work, trade them......but I am sympathetic to those that believe you can speed up the process by signing legit FAs. I am more sympathetic to your stance, though.

[mazeville]

 

 

Frankly, imo, a bad team should sign highly variable players to low/mid 1 year make good deals, and then when they work, trade them......but I am sympathetic to those that believe you can speed up the process by signing legit FAs. I am more sympathetic to your stance, though.

 

Fully agree with that. Bad teams should sign low risk, high reward guys to short-term deals. 

 

I just don't think you can depend on free agency to rebuild.

[howieramone2]

 

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

All you need to do is trade board favorites Sano And Gonsalves plus sweetners. Hopefully the new management group can think outside the box.

[howieramone2]

 

It's very easy to look back now and see these moves were foolish. But if you really feel your team is on the brink and you want to make that big push -- the kind of big push that EVERYONE was yearning for from TR when the Twins couldn't quite get over the hump in the 2000s -- these were defensible when they were made.

 

Greinke has been one of the better pitchers in the game for most of his career and posted a freakin 1.66 ERA last year. Shelby Miller was himself rated as a Top 10 prospect in the game before he came up and posted a 3.22 ERA in the 575 MLB innings all before the age of 25. 

These guys looked like bona fide front of the rotation starters. Exactly what the Twins sorely need. But the way things have played out is a reminder that nothing is guaranteed with these kinds of acquisitions. Far from it. 

Kind of like Berrios crapping the bed.

Edited September 8, 2016 by howieramone2

[Nick Nelson]

 

Kind of like Berrios crapping the bed.

Except that Greinke and Miller had both done it in the majors, for multiple seasons. Berrios had a fantastic minor-league track record but was still largely an unknown. 

[LaBombo]

 

This is how I read the article as well. It's a cautionary tale and a reminder that movement is not synonymous with progress.

 

 

 

And that's how I read the article as well, which is why it made me want to scream. Obscenities. A lot.

 

 

Calling the article a cautionary tale sells it a bit short. To me it felt eerily similar to the admonishing half of The Truman Show's anesthetizing, piped in radio programming that by turns reminds Truman how nice he has it in his safe, boring bubble town, and how terrifying the big, bad, unpredictable outside world can be.

 

But the arguable specifics and questionable relevance of the D-backs' struggles aside, the simple, awful, g*ddamned truth of the Twins is that they have screwed things up so badly that even change FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE can be a good thing.

 

After five years of a haphazard rebuilding effort with access to the enhanced revenue of a new stadium, the Twins not only lost games at a nearly historical pace for most of the season, they also saw their vaunted farm system's most promising prospects and products struggle the most.

 

The glass half full version of this is that the Twins can combine a relatively clean slate approach with some valuable pieces. They haven't been strip mined by Jeff Loria or confined to a venue like the Rays' enormous green sports toilet, and despite their seemingly best efforts to the contrary, their fan base remains relatively loyal.

 

The half empty version is that the 2016 Twins have just two good ballplayers. Dozier and Santana have each posted WARs that equal the total of the next four lower hitters or pitchers combined. And the rest of the hitters and pitchers totaled just over and just under one WAR, respectively.

 

So all is not lost, but... man, if ever there were a Twins team this century whose management could throw caution to the wind and just swing for the fences, rear back and let it fly, lay out full extension... pick your strained baseball metaphor.

 

 

The Twins are a broken car. What harm will drastic fixes do? Make it not work worse?

Edited September 8, 2016 by LaBombo

[diehardtwinsfan]

Again, drastic fixes to solve problems that don't exist will make said car run worse. I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be change, but I do think that taking the time to identify what the actual problems are and making changes accordingly is the right strategy.  Change for changes sake is rarely good.  If it works, it's more luck than anything.

 

I do hope they are smart about the changes. I don't want them to gut everything unless the new GM/POBO truly thinks everything is broken (and I doubt they will conclude that).  Keep what works, fix what is broken. That's how this team will return to respectability. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins are a broken car. What harm will drastic fixes do? Make it not work worse?

Find a broken down automobile. Take a sledgehammer to it. Maybe run it over with a monster truck.

 

Now try to get said automobile on the road again.

 

Things can always get worse. The goal is to fix the car, not see if you can find new ways to break the bits that work properly.

[wsnydes]

 

Find a broken down automobile. Take a sledgehammer to it. Maybe run it over with a monster truck.

Now try to get said automobile on the road again.

Things can always get worse. The goal is to fix the car, not see if you can find new ways to break the bits that work properly.

No doubt.  This is a very pivotal time for this franchise.  It has minor league talent in which to build with.  How the FO personnel and structure are chosen is extremely important to get it right.  Bring in the correct people, make the correct moves and this franchise could be set up for an extended run.  Making rash, hasty, or poorly thought out decisions could not only not make things better, they could extend this already putrid run even further.  Now is not the time for instantaneous decision making.

Edited September 8, 2016 by wsnydes

[USAFChief]

 

Find a broken down automobile. Take a sledgehammer to it. Maybe run it over with a monster truck.

Now try to get said automobile on the road again.

Things can always get worse. The goal is to fix the car, not see if you can find new ways to break the bits that work properly.

The car is going to lose 550 games over 6 years, and is currently in possibly the worst shape of any of those 6 years.  It hasn't finished a race in first place in two and a half decades.  

 

It's already had a sledge taken too it, been run over by a monster truck, and is farther from being on the road again than it's ever been.

 

The last thing I want from new management is "well, let's not be hasty here."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The car is going to lose 550 games over 6 years, and is currently in possibly the worst shape of any of those 6 years.  It hasn't finished a race in first place in two and a half decades.  

 

It's already had a sledge taken too it, been run over by a monster truck, and is farther from being on the road again than it's ever been.

 

The last thing I want from new management is "well, let's not be hasty here."

But management is as much about fixing the car as it is ensuring the car will never break down again.

 

I want to see big changes but I don't want to see big changes just for change's sake, which is basically what's being argued here.

 

The Twins have a lot of valuable assets right now. They're one of the youngest teams in baseball. Their farm system is decent, at least middling... Maybe a bit better than that. Things can get worse. That doesn't mean you stall out and avoid change out of fear but it does mean you go into "fixing the car" with a real plan that looks years, not months, ahead.

[TheLeviathan]

I think drastic changes are called for.  Drastic, reasonable, changes.  Brock is right about this analogy: yeah, you can't make the car run worse, but you can do serious damage to how quickly it is before you get it up and running again.  

[FargoFanMan]

You'd rather give up players than money? The team has plenty of revenue, when winning, to have a payroll north of $115 to 125MM....

You missed my point. Obviously you should be the twins GM. You would take right after good old Terry Ryan at totally missing what is right in front of you. Who cares about payroll! Name me one $200M free agent who was worth the contract and didn't hamstring the team 3-5 years later who was or is worth the multi millions he makes. I would gladly give up prospects to win. No question. When the team needs a boost to make a run. Prospects and free agents are the same in my mind. Almost every time they never live up to expectations. How many times in the 2000's did the twins do nothing at the deadline? More times than not waiting for someone who was injured to come back to give a boost. They did nothing. No pitcher to pair with Johan. No player to replace an injured Morneau. Never. They never parted with prospects. Where are these prospects now? Obviously they are having all star seasons for the twins. That's why we are where we are. payroll should be for signing our young stars long term. Payroll should be for taking on a good player in a trade to help us push through. Payroll should be for signing a solid role player to fill a need. Never should we use payroll to sign an over marketed underperforming 30 something. Am I in the twilight zone here? Nolasco? Hughes? Does anyone remember these guys? Alright. Go ahead and rip me now. Before you do at the very least. Read what I've written and think about how you will rip me first. An intelligent answer will go a long way than simply saying, " but what about money?"....

[LaBombo]

 

Find a broken down automobile. Take a sledgehammer to it. Maybe run it over with a monster truck.

Now try to get said automobile on the road again.

Things can always get worse. The goal is to fix the car, not see if you can find new ways to break the bits that work properly.

At the risk of prolonging the game of metaphor badminton that I unadvisedly started, I said "drastic fixes" (overhaul vs. tuneup), not 'wanton punitive destruction' (letting a chop shop 'work on' your car).

 

My point was and is that the Twins have both the freedom and the obligation to depart from the path that has led the franchise to its dismal standing today, and that the consequences for experimenting with even somewhat radical ideas, as long as they're rational, are likely relatively small compared to the potential reward.

 

Yes, "things can always get worse", which is by the way a somewhat ironic point to argue, given that the Twins have conclusively proved it this year, and did so essentially by continuing the status quo.

 

And to that mantra, I would reply a) yes, but not much worse, b} so? , and most of all c), resistance to change and the fear of making things worse has already cost the Twins, and it must not continue to do so.

 

Setting aside the metaphors and philosophy, my 'to do' list for the Twins looks something like this:

 

1. Bring in new leadership: a CEO/president who either oversees or replaces St. Peter, and a new GM who has filled a high-leverage role in a successful organization that's at least moderately reliant on metrics.

 

2. Spend money. Eat a little red ink to replenish the talent pool. Hundreds of corporations do it every year to recover from the ill effects of their bad decisions, and they do it without the safety net and collateral of a billionaire owner or hundreds of millions in publicly subsidized real estate equity, let alone both.

 

3. Rebuild or contend, but for the love of god, pick one. Impending free agents wandering off instead of netting prospects in trade, talking tough about the bullpen and coming home from the winter meetings with only Francisco Abad in your shopping basket... these are the actions of a franchise intent on offering a competent entertainment product, not building a contending team.

 

And if the Twins decide not to employ these ideas or any others outside their comfort zone, then I sincerely hope it's not because they're terrified of becoming the 2016 Diamondbacks.

 

 

 

PS Greinke's xFIP is only 3.84 , Shelby Miller is only 25, Goldschmidt still rocks, and Chris Hermann is OPSing .841.

Edited September 9, 2016 by LaBombo

[TheLeviathan]

 

And if the Twins decide not to employ these ideas or any others outside their comfort zone, then I sincerely hope it's not because they're terrified of becoming the 2016 Diamondbacks.

 

I hope they are terrified about some of it.  Some of what they did was just unwise.  I agree with your larger point, but there are lessons to be learned from Arizona.  Most notably, to be careful about what you judge your team to be and to need before you go out and try to change it.

[jimmer]

We could just do what Ryan did this offseason.  Look at our 2015 record, actually believe the talent level on the team was that good as opposed to being the beneficiary of some advantageous sequencing on the offensive side, and then do zippidy-squat to improve weaknesses that were apparent to most everyone while other teams tried to, you know, actually get better. :-)

[Major League Ready]

 

 

OTOH......If a bad team signs the best FA every year for three years......it is certainly possible to speed up the process, though you'd have to be very lucky/skilled, to pick the right player(s).

 

 

If you are talking about the NY, LA or Bos, this is a good point.  It's ridiculous if you are talking about the twins.  You are suggesting that a team at a revenue disadvantage of $150-250M/yr as compared to those teams should be able to outbid them for the best free agents three years in a row.   There are 30 teams but we should get the best FAs.

 

You and others also advocate just do it now.  You have asked me several times how long should we wait as if after a certain number of years this must be done.  It should be done when the core has matured and the final pieces are needed.  How many years we have sucked is not relevant to when a team should pursue a premier FA.  Did the Mets, Royals or Pirates go out and spend on FAs during their extended period of losing? 

 

The reality of the strategy you advocate is that those players are very likely good for about half of the contract.  This team would be better for sure but certainly not a contender.  Then, when our young core grows up, we have $80-90M/yr in players well below their prime that could have been invested in productive players.  In other words, you have opted to add these FAs when we suck instead of when we have the team around them to contend. 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Major Leauge Ready

[USAFChief]

If you are talking about the NY, LA or Bos, this is a good point.  It's ridiculous if you are talking about the twins.  You are suggesting that a team at a revenue disadvantage of $150-250M/yr as compared to those teams should be able to outbid them for the best free agents three years in a row.   There are 30 teams but we should get the best FAs.

 

You and others also advocate just do it now.  You have asked me several times how long should we wait as if after a certain number of years this must be done.  It should be done when the core has matured and the final pieces are needed.  How many years we have sucked is not relevant to when a team should pursue a premier FA.  Did the Mets, Royals or Pirates go out and spend on FAs during their extended period of losing? 

 

The reality of the strategy you advocate is that those players are very likely good for about half of the contract.  This team would be better for sure but certainly not a contender.  Then, when our young core grows up, we have $80-90M/yr in players well below their prime that could have been invested in productive players.  In other words, you have opted to add these FAs when we suck instead of when we have the team around them to contend.

 

Which is it...paragraph 1 or paragraphs 2 and 3?

 

Because in 1 you indicate the Twins can't afford it.

 

Then in 2 and 3 you admit they can, but the timing has to be right.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You missed my point. Obviously you should be the twins GM. You would take right after good old Terry Ryan at totally missing what is right in front of you. Who cares about payroll! Name me one $200M free agent who was worth the contract and didn't hamstring the team 3-5 years later who was or is worth the multi millions he makes. I would gladly give up prospects to win. No question. When the team needs a boost to make a run. Prospects and free agents are the same in my mind. Almost every time they never live up to expectations. How many times in the 2000's did the twins do nothing at the deadline? More times than not waiting for someone who was injured to come back to give a boost. They did nothing. No pitcher to pair with Johan. No player to replace an injured Morneau. Never. They never parted with prospects. Where are these prospects now? Obviously they are having all star seasons for the twins. That's why we are where we are. payroll should be for signing our young stars long term. Payroll should be for taking on a good player in a trade to help us push through. Payroll should be for signing a solid role player to fill a need. Never should we use payroll to sign an over marketed underperforming 30 something. Am I in the twilight zone here? Nolasco? Hughes? Does anyone remember these guys? Alright. Go ahead and rip me now. Before you do at the very least. Read what I've written and think about how you will rip me first. An intelligent answer will go a long way than simply saying, " but what about money?"....

 

Wow, there's a lot in this post.....I especially like the polite way it is posted...

 

Where did I say the following:

 

1. FA contracts are good the whole length of the contract

2. Teams should sign players that are under performing

3. Teams should sign many mediocre players at the same position, rather than 1 good player

4. They should never trade prospects for proven players to get over the hump

 

No place, in the history of this site, did I post those things. But, it was an excellent straw man post.

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you are talking about the NY, LA or Bos, this is a good point.  It's ridiculous if you are talking about the twins.  You are suggesting that a team at a revenue disadvantage of $150-250M/yr as compared to those teams should be able to outbid them for the best free agents three years in a row.   There are 30 teams but we should get the best FAs.

 

You and others also advocate just do it now.  You have asked me several times how long should we wait as if after a certain number of years this must be done.  It should be done when the core has matured and the final pieces are needed.  How many years we have sucked is not relevant to when a team should pursue a premier FA.  Did the Mets, Royals or Pirates go out and spend on FAs during their extended period of losing? 

 

The reality of the strategy you advocate is that those players are very likely good for about half of the contract.  This team would be better for sure but certainly not a contender.  Then, when our young core grows up, we have $80-90M/yr in players well below their prime that could have been invested in productive players.  In other words, you have opted to add these FAs when we suck instead of when we have the team around them to contend. 

 

They didn't, and the Royals lost for over 30 years......I too would rather add the FAs when the team is good, and they need to fill one hole....but, I guess, since it is an entertainment business that somewhat relies on butts in seats....at some point, they need to try to speed up the process, imo. I do agree, the Twins can't buy a team like the Yankees used to. No place have I advocated that that. 

 

Had they signed a big time FA 5 years ago, to a 6 year deal......would they be hamstrung right now? How about 4 years ago? Nope. 

 

edit: I think I was clear, best, not most expensive. And, I was clear, you'd have to be lucky to do that. No place have I ever stated they should sign the most expensive FA every year. No place.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Mike Sixel