Article: Twins Need To Be Buyers Next Winter

[caninatl04]

 

I would be the GM that TD hates. I would rarely if ever spend big money on a free agent. Instead I would plow that money into scouting and international signings. Scott Bowman kept the Canadiens dynasty alive by trading popular productive players before they hit their decline. Free agency is mostly fools gold.

Scotty Bowman was never the GM of the Canadiens.  Its why he left for Detroit.  Sam Pollock was the GM during Scotty's tenure.

[IndianaTwin]

 

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't it read "playoff berth"?

 

Pretty sure "playoff birth" isn't the correct terminology.

 

But, yes, I agree the Twins should start adding pieces next offseason. While I'm generally not a fan of $150m contracts to free agents, I'd be happy with the Twins picking up guys in the $50-90m range.

 

I don't know -- I kinda like "playoff birth." Postseason baseball and becoming a parent both involve a lot of pain and putting up with a lot of crap along the way, but they're pretty amazing and a lot of fun when they come to fruition! :-)

Edited March 17, 2017 by IndianaTwin

[KirbyDome89]

 

I used to play a ton of cribbage on line and won 60% but would still have stretches where I would go 3-19 with some of them even against poor players.   Sorry about the bragging  but the coin flip is close to 50/50 odds and randomness is what allows there to be wide variations in small sample results.   Twins against the Yankees were less than 50/50 con flip but if they were to play another 22 games I would have been happy to take the chances.      In fact I am still a bit bitter about 2008 tie breaker loss.    KC was one out from their playoff record being 0-1 in 2014 instead of  11-4.    Twins getting hot was always a possibility.   The fact that it didn't happen is no proof that it could not happen.     Those Twins teams always did well really well in interleague and did just fine against the AL West.   They were not as good as the AL East teams but still did even worse against them than the bad KC teams against them.    I never understood it.    More mental than physical.

I think I would feel too guilty taking your money if we placed a wager on a Twins vs. Yankees 22 game series...

 

Since we're on probabilities; do you know what the percentage chance of the Twins being swept in three straight playoff series is? A lot less than 1%. They're either one of the unluckiest teams of all time or they weren't at the level of their playoff competition. I would agree with the latter. Nobody is making the point that a 3-19 record is impossible and that deviation to the mean (a TD favorite) couldn't happen, it just seems highly unlikely that in a game where a player/team can exert so much control physically on the outcome that a team like the Twins is just "unlucky," that often. 

 

I'm not sure why all these one game playoff comparisons are popping up. The one game wild card didn't even exist during those playoff years. They participated in play in games as a regular season tiebreak and those games aren't included in the 3-19 record. 

[KirbyDome89]

I get not wanting to drop big cash on a FA pitcher, and I agree that the back of those contracts rarely if ever work out, but I don't know if I see another way in which this team as it stands can legitimately compete for a WS. 

 

Of course I would rather they develop front end starters and fill out their entire staff from within before looking outward but how realistic is that? There is a large push to build in that regard and I agree with it, the problem is that by the time they've established a pitching pipeline (if they ever do, they are the Twins...) the team could be looking at players like Sano or Buxton walking ie the window suddenly closing. For the long term obviously they need to focus on scouting and development, but if we're talking about putting together a solid playoff pitching staff to coincide with the rise of Buxton, Sano, Kepler, ect I just don't know if there is enough time to do that via development before those players are at the end of their contracts. 

 

I feel like if you're banking on being able to build a pitching staff in the next few years without spending for an ace then nearly all of the young pitchers in the minors are going to hit their ceiling as well as the Twins finding gold in a trade a la Jake Arrieta. That is a lot to ask. 

 

The end of big FA contracts suck, no doubt about it, but if they can use a contract like that as a bridge until they actually establish a pitching pipeline then I'm all for it. 

[Vanimal46]

 

I get not wanting to drop big cash on a FA pitcher, and I agree that the back of those contracts rarely if ever work out, but I don't know if I see another way in which this team as it stands can legitimately compete for a WS. 

 

Of course I would rather they develop front end starters and fill out their entire staff from within before looking outward but how realistic is that? There is a large push to build in that regard and I agree with it, the problem is that by the time they've established a pitching pipeline (if they ever do, they are the Twins...) the team could be looking at players like Sano or Buxton walking ie the window suddenly closing. For the long term obviously they need to focus on scouting and development, but if we're talking about putting together a solid playoff pitching staff to coincide with the rise of Buxton, Sano, Kepler, ect I just don't know if there is enough time to do that via development before those players are at the end of their contracts. 

 

I feel like if you're banking on being able to build a pitching staff in the next few years without spending for an ace then nearly all of the young pitchers in the minors are going to hit their ceiling as well as the Twins finding gold in a trade a la Jake Arrieta. That is a lot to ask. 

 

The end of big FA contracts suck, no doubt about it, but if they can use a contract like that as a bridge until they actually establish a pitching pipeline then I'm all for it. 

 

Hypothetically, since they're far away from being WS contenders, they'd have to go with the route the Royals took. Sacrificing prospects for good to great rentals to help them get over the hump. 

 

The best route IMO to finding a front line starter is through trade. It's not realistic to think that all of Gonsalves, Stewart, Romero, Jay, whoever else I'm forgetting will make an impact in the MLB. I'd gladly trade one or more to acquire someone who can provide an impact if they are close to being contenders. 

[TNTwinsFan]

Depending on how 2017 goes, I think Pineda shoukd be the target. He's youngish and peripherals look good. His price may be kept down by the fact that he hasn't been too good. Could be a great replacement for a Santiago or Hughes type in the rotation.

[markos]

 

Since we're on probabilities; do you know what the percentage chance of the Twins being swept in three straight playoff series is? A lot less than 1%. They're either one of the unluckiest teams of all time or they weren't at the level of their playoff competition. I would agree with the latter. Nobody is making the point that a 3-19 record is impossible and that deviation to the mean (a TD favorite) couldn't happen, it just seems highly unlikely that in a game where a player/team can exert so much control physically on the outcome that a team like the Twins is just "unlucky," that often. 

Doesn't it have to be a fair amount of both? If you want to argue that they weren't at the level of their playoff competition, that's fine. But exactly how big of underdogs do they need to be in order for an 0-9 record to be an expected outcome? Or even a 3-19 record? My back-of-the-envelope calculations might be off, but wouldn't they need to be something like a 10-1 underdog in every single game in order for those results to be expected? It seems crazy to me that two playoff baseball teams would have such wide discrepancy. I can't check at work, but are any Vegas lines close to that for a single playoff game?

[beckmt]

After this season you start locking up the core you can to long term contracts.  This gives you cost control and certainty of payroll so you can see what you can afford in the FA pitcher market.

 

You need an ace or a shutdown 4-5 inning bullpen to help make a run for the series.  Then you figure out how many pitchers you need to buy and go after them.  With the Twins young core, I do not believe it will be impossible to get them to come here. 

[USAFChief]

 

You responded to me and I said I'd rather not spend like a drunken sailor.  You then quoted a GM about spending irrationally.

 

I stand by what I said - I don't want to spend like a drunken sailor.  FA, for the Twins, will always have to be measured and smart.  Even if it becomes more aggressive.

If you define something as "spending like a drunken sailor," and then say you're against "spending like a drunken sailor." you've sort of set the terms of conversation in such a way as to prevent conversation.

 

The point is, there's a pretty good argument that purchasing top free agents is not actually "spending like a drunken sailor."  

 

It's paying market rate for something you think you need now, to hopefully achieve goals now, that might end up hurting your pursuit of later goals.

 

Against that?  Fine.

 

But it's not "spending like a drunken sailor."

[DocBauer]

IMO, the Twins are financially sound enough and viable enough to make that $20-25M splash once every few seasons. Now is an example with the finances coming off the books the next couple of seasons.

 

Right now, it's looking like Hughes becoming a solid ML SP again is actually a possibility. Let's say the Gibson we are seeing this ST is a healthy and rebounding Gibson and not a mirage. Santiago and Santana both may be gone next seaaon or sometime later this season. Fast forward to 2018 and a couple guys like Berrios and Mejia have proven something in 2017 and the rotation might actually be just that one big arm away.

 

But assuming those guys, Gonsalves, Jay, Jorge, Stewart and Romero don't all have themselves fine seasons and are on the brink, I'd almost rather put together a package and trade for a top starter. Probably more control and even a younger option than going the FA route.

[Kwak]

A credible method for building a top team is to trade elite prospects for multiple prospects.  One can become three, then nine.  It takes time, but it is sustainable.

[MN_ExPat]

Good... Good!   (Cue evil chuckling laugher of Palpatine)

Let the hate flow through you! Let it make you strong.   Take up your weapon and strike me down!

 

Ok, sorry about that one folks, couldn't resist.  Not as vitriolic as some discussions I've seen, but I think I did feel the Dark Side flowing through some of the posts.

 

I think that we (myself included) often loose sight of just how difficult a game that baseball is (a beautiful, glorious game, but still extremely difficult).   We see the success that other franchises such as the cubs have had (cue the 'why can't we have nice things lament') and gnash our terrible teeth and roll our terrible eyes and roar our terrible roars. 

 

The grog-nards, long-beards and curmudgeons harrumph and say, 'See, I told you that our prospects wouldn't develop'.

 

No other game in this world celebrates failure, or seems to, quite as much as baseball.    Where else do we see a 30+% success rate (i.e. batting average) and call someone a hall of famer?

 

What other sport lists failures on the score board? 

 

Still we come back.   Why?    Because all the silly personnel decisions, player drama and long-beard grumblings aside... Baseball is pure.   The game at it's heart is joyous and fun.    Filled with the highest of joys and the lowest points of anguish and heartache.

 

So the Twins, like many other franchises, have oft made mistakes and poor decisions.   So has every other team that has ever played the game.   IF the Twins fall flat on their collective faces again this year and prospects again fail to develop or get injured, I will sigh, shake my head and go play catch with my son in the yard. 

 

I will take him to his travel ball practices and tournaments, continue to enjoy his journey, be reminded that Baseball is joyous and be thankful to God that we have this beautiful game to partake of, even if we are Twins fans and are consigned to wander the desert in search of the Promised Land.

[Darius]

Twins "buying." This is one of the more hysterical spoof articles I've read in a while. You have a future.

[darin617]

No interest in any of those pitchers. All will demand a minimum of 5 years and you have to be careful of their ages near the end and the possible opt out in a contract. 

 

Let's just wait for 2018 offseason when Joe Mauer is finally off the books to think about spending money on an aging pitcher.

[Darius]

Another observation:

 

I'm not sure why it became so fashionable to be anti-spending. There is a paradigm floating around the spending and success have some kind of inverse relationship.

 

This just isn't true. The Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Rangers, and numerous other big budget franchises totally eclipse the opposite in terms of sustained success. Every once in a blue moon, a team like the Royals or As make a cute little run, or a big-money team underperformed, and get people all worked up.

 

And why are the Cubs being dragged into the small-market, build from the ground-up approach? Last I checked, they're in the top 5 in payroll every year. They just finally got competent scouts. Do people really think all of these big-time prospects were a product of them being cheap?

 

I know a lot of salesman that would love your phone numbers.

 

I'll take sustained success, over a cute little 1-3 year run that implodes once players want to get paid, any day. The opposite is like saying, "I'd rather have a terrible job, and live in a junky old house in a bad neighborhood, with bad schools, because they're generally the ones that win the lottery."

 

Reality has been totally lost.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you define something as "spending like a drunken sailor," and then say you're against "spending like a drunken sailor." you've sort of set the terms of conversation in such a way as to prevent conversation.

 

The point is, there's a pretty good argument that purchasing top free agents is not actually "spending like a drunken sailor."  

 

It's paying market rate for something you think you need now, to hopefully achieve goals now, that might end up hurting your pursuit of later goals.

 

Against that?  Fine.

 

But it's not "spending like a drunken sailor."

 

How often do you do that?  Every year?  Just once when you need it?  How much of your roster can be composed of guys paid in the top 10% of the league?  What should payroll be?

 

These are questions you should answer, not me.  Your original statement put no bounds on spending, which I consider to be both unrealistic and unwise.  I colorfully described that as drunken soldier spending. 

 

So please, you and Mike and everyone else, what's sufficient for the Twins to be spending to make you warm and cozy inside?  

[USAFChief]

 

How often do you do that?  Every year?  Just once when you need it?  How much of your roster can be composed of guys paid in the top 10% of the league?  What should payroll be?

 

These are questions you should answer, not me.  Your original statement put no bounds on spending, which I consider to be both unrealistic and unwise.  I colorfully described that as drunken soldier spending. 

 

So please, you and Mike and everyone else, what's sufficient for the Twins to be spending to make you warm and cozy inside?  

My original statement was that the Twins shouldn't shut themselves off from pursuing top free agents.

 

They should never do that.  Obviously, they can't go out and sign a dozen.  No team does that.  

 

But that's not, in any way, "spending like a drunken sailor."  

 

That's just operating in the environment of professional sports, in a way that increases the odds of winning.

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Sorry, as random in sports, not coin flipping. I never liked Billy Beane much but he's a pretty good baseball mind who talked about the randomness of baseball playoffs. The 87 Twins were a garbage team who went all the way cuz they got hot (Les freaking Straker was their #3 starter) while the 1991 Twins were objectively not as good as the 1991 Jays but beat them anyway.

 

In basketball, the best teams make it to the finals most years - you don't get a #6 seed going. Football is a bit more random with the sudden death format but again, the worst playoff teams don't have a chance (you could redo the 2016 NFL playoffs 100 times and the Raiders and Texans never make the Super Bowl). Baseball is a lot more random - better teams lose all the time and any team that makes it has the potential to go all the way. I'd say that hockey is more random since it seems like all you need is a hot goalie and you're capable of beating anyone.

Yes, in any given game anything can happen.

But when the results are 3-19, there is a cause somewhere.

[Pardon My Dinger]

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't it read "playoff berth"?

 

Pretty sure "playoff birth" isn't the correct terminology.

 

 

Can't speak for everyone, but I would personally feel reborn into a strange, brave new world, rich with bold, ripened possibilities and untold delights, the likes of which were no more than a fantasy a lifetime ago.

[TheLeviathan]

My original statement was that the Twins shouldn't shut themselves off from pursuing top free agents.

 

They should never do that. Obviously, they can't go out and sign a dozen. No team does that.

 

But that's not, in any way, "spending like a drunken sailor."

 

That's just operating in the environment of professional sports, in a way that increases the odds of winning.

Every offseason? How big should their payroll be and what percentage of it should be signed FAs?

 

I have trouble reckoning your past comments on spending with this post that tries to argue you'd be content with a philosophy that merely doesn't rule it out.

Edited March 17, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[USAFChief]

Every offseason? How big should their payroll be and what percentage of it should be signed FAs?

 

I have trouble reckoning your past comments on spending with this post that tries to argue you'd be content with a philosophy that merely doesn't rule it out.

How about we start with one. single. FA. of note in one single off season, and then see where we're at?

[flags]

while dreaming about signing top tier free agents can be fun, reality is that none of these guys or any top tier free agents are going to sign in Minnesota until they prove they can have sustained success.  their only hope would be to outbid every other team and hope the player values money over winning.  which, i don't think is as common as many people would believe, especially for the top tier guys who are going to get paid no matter where they go

 

arguing about who they should target and how much they should be willing to spend or commit in years is moot until the Twins can entice free agents with something other than money

[TheLeviathan]

 

How about we start with one. single. FA. of note in one single off season, and then see where we're at?

 

Now we need to define "of note".  Because Phil Hughes could qualify.  

 

And again, this seems like a weak conclusion relative to what you've said in the past.  It's nice to finally have some clarification though.  Some of you talk a really, really strong game but this is pretty tepid.

[prouster]

 

A credible method for building a top team is to trade elite prospects for multiple prospects.  One can become three, then nine.  It takes time, but it is sustainable.

 

Who has done this? I don't mean to be snarky, but I literally can't think of a single prospect for prospect swap that included a player with elite upside. The reason is that those kinds of players are exceedingly rare, and the chance that they hit is way more valuable than the (maybe?) lower risk strategy of having several decent prospects. Not to mention one pre-arb player who puts up as many WAR as 2-3 pre-arb guys is inherently more valuable to the team. The drop off after number five or so on any top-100 prospect list is incredibly steep, to the point where number 10 is typically closer in upside to number 40 than to number 1. So, yeah. I don't see how this is a legitimate rebuilding strategy.

 

For argument's sake, imagine the Cubs trading Kris Bryant for something like Severino and Judge before the 2015 season.

[prouster]

 

How about we start with one. single. FA. of note in one single off season, and then see where we're at?

 

(I'll stop posting for a while after this one so as not to spam the thread.)

 

Well, Ervin Santana signed the fourth largest FA contract for any pitcher during the 2015-16 offseason. The larger ones went to Max Scherzer, Jon Lester, and James Shields. Santana's was the ninth largest contract overall that year. Maybe that's an indictment on the TR regime, or maybe Ervin was a free agent of note. I lean toward the latter. Someone else also mentioned the Hughes contract. Just throwing it out there.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Hypothetically, since they're far away from being WS contenders, they'd have to go with the route the Royals took. Sacrificing prospects for good to great rentals to help them get over the hump. 

 

The best route IMO to finding a front line starter is through trade. It's not realistic to think that all of Gonsalves, Stewart, Romero, Jay, whoever else I'm forgetting will make an impact in the MLB. I'd gladly trade one or more to acquire someone who can provide an impact if they are close to being contenders. 

Agreed; at this point given how bad the staff is, refusal to sign a FA difference maker leaves them with no choice but to trade for one. Moving an established vet (DOZIER!) for a front end prospect is most preferable but yeah as painful as it would be to give up prospects (especially pitchers) it might be the better alternative to wait/hope all the prospects work out. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Doesn't it have to be a fair amount of both? If you want to argue that they weren't at the level of their playoff competition, that's fine. But exactly how big of underdogs do they need to be in order for an 0-9 record to be an expected outcome? Or even a 3-19 record? My back-of-the-envelope calculations might be off, but wouldn't they need to be something like a 10-1 underdog in every single game in order for those results to be expected? It seems crazy to me that two playoff baseball teams would have such wide discrepancy. I can't check at work, but are any Vegas lines close to that for a single playoff game?

No? It isn't an expected outcome which is precisely why I don't buy the idea that they were just on the wrong side of luck. Its obvious the chances of being swept in three straight series are extremely low. Its a .2% chance of losing that many games in a row. If somebody is going to point to the reason for all those losses as simply bad luck then like I said before, they must be the unluckiest team in all of baseball. I agree you'll never see a line like that for a playoff game. I have no idea what the lines were for those games (too lazy to check) but I'm sure they should've won at least a couple during that 9 game stretch. The argument isn't that they were 0-9 bad or 3-19 bad, its that given the percentage chances or reaching those records, the idea that they were just "unlucky," seems ridiculous. IMO other factors (inferiority compared to competition) played a large part in their hapless postseason performance. 

[Platoon]

Flexibility is a key complement in this matter. Two years ago the team could have made a run if the FO had purchased a front line rental. But that team, and this one cannot trade it's youthful postion players to acquire one. They were on the right track with the Dozier idea, but it didn't pan out. This season, win or lose, will go a long way to determining what they chase next winter. If it goes as I think it will, they throw everything and the kitchen sink into finding a #1 or #2 SP, without trading anyone under 30 years old. Basically cash. There aren't a lot of trading chips that we can move. So it will become a test of whether the perception of the Pohlads frugality is indeed just a perception.

[USAFChief]

(I'll stop posting for a while after this one so as not to spam the thread.)

 

Well, Ervin Santana signed the fourth largest FA contract for any pitcher during the 2015-16 offseason. The larger ones went to Max Scherzer, Jon Lester, and James Shields. Santana's was the ninth largest contract overall that year. Maybe that's an indictment on the TR regime, or maybe Ervin was a free agent of note. I lean toward the latter. Someone else also mentioned the Hughes contract. Just throwing it out there.

We're talking going forward, and it's debatable whether singing Santana a fraction of the going rate for top free agent pitching is "of note," but I'll grant you this one.

 

Signing Santana hasn't hurt the Twins one bit. He's probably their opening day starter, is a good bet to lead the staff this year, is only owed for this season and next, and his contract doesn't limit them financially in the least. Santana is an argument to sign more and better free agent pitching.

 

As for Hughes, he was a cheap free agent pickup. It's the extension that hurts.

 

In any case, I simply don't think there's an argument against seriously pursuing top free agents. At least not one based on something other than ownership's profit margins. They are going to supplement the pitching staff from outside the org...no team gets all it's pitching from its own system. Might as well supplant at the top.

[Kwak]

 

Who has done this? I don't mean to be snarky, but I literally can't think of a single prospect for prospect swap that included a player with elite upside. The reason is that those kinds of players are exceedingly rare, and the chance that they hit is way more valuable than the (maybe?) lower risk strategy of having several decent prospects. Not to mention one pre-arb player who puts up as many WAR as 2-3 pre-arb guys is inherently more valuable to the team. The drop off after number five or so on any top-100 prospect list is incredibly steep, to the point where number 10 is typically closer in upside to number 40 than to number 1. So, yeah. I don't see how this is a legitimate rebuilding strategy.

 

For argument's sake, imagine the Cubs trading Kris Bryant for something like Severino and Judge before the 2015 season.

Expand your mind--consider a top young player about to enter free agency, then trade him for multiple players.  Example:  Sano. He stays for 4-5 years--then trade him for multiple players. Maybe the same for Buxton (or if possible) another Twins player who shines--and trade him--all for multiple players.  True this takes time to build a powerhouse team but it can work.  Huge contract extensions to stars moving into free agency (or about to) e.g. Mauer and Morneau didn't lead to long term success.  In fact it lead to crimped payroll restrictions to try to piece together complementary players around them to build a winner.  Trading those two for multiple player might have yielded a bonanza (or a Milbury).

 

Consider what Houston did--traded their best for prospects, lost like crazy, and hit (and missed!) in the draft.  Perhaps they trade one or two of their best before they reach free agency in an attempt to fill a pipeline of top talent?  Though, Houston can generate enough revenue to keep players if they choose.