Twins and Gibson Discussion and Extension

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

SpotTrac has the Twins 2019 payroll at more than the final payroll for 2018.

It won’t stay that way if they are sellers but by various accounts 2019 is not far off from 2018.

SpoTrac is missing an additional $9 mil of Hughes' salary which we paid in 2018.

 

Also, the "final payroll" for 2018 reflects our seller status last summer -- the Yankees ate $2 mil of Lynn's salary, and the Diamondbacks absorbed about $1.5 mil for Escobar.

[jorgenswest]

SpoTrac is missing an additional $9 mil of Hughes' salary which we paid in 2018.

 

Also, the "final payroll" for 2018 reflects our seller status last summer -- the Yankees ate $2 mil of Lynn's salary, and the Diamondbacks absorbed about $1.5 mil for Escobar.

Thanks for pointing out the Hughes adjustment from SpoTrac.

 

It still seems reasonable that the final 2019 will be fairly close to the 2018. I really didn’t think it would be close last fall. Let’s hope they are buyers, sign a couple more guys to extensions or both.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It still seems reasonable that the final 2019 will be fairly close to the 2018. I really didn’t think it would be close last fall. Let’s hope they are buyers, sign a couple more guys to extensions or both.

Yeah, it's not too far off. But I don't know about using 2019 payroll resources for even more extensions -- we really need to add more talent, not just pay existing talent more!

[Joe A. Preusser]

You mean like slashing $20 mil in payroll from 2018 to 2019?

First, as others have pointed out, the difference is nowhere near 20 million.

 

Second, please tell me you understand the difference between slashing payroll and spending less. Joe Mauer came off the books when his contract expired and he decided to retire. Any executive whos first thought in such a scenario is "how can I spend more next year" should be fired immediately. It must be "how do we improve, while being responsible to the future?"

 

We have done that. Get over the total payroll number.

[jorgenswest]

Yeah, it's not too far off. But I don't know about using 2019 payroll resources for even more extensions -- we really need to add more talent, not just pay existing talent more!

I am willing to pay a cost this year to get a Berrios extension of team control.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I am willing to pay a cost this year to get a Berrios extension of team control.

I'd like to see Berrios extended too, but I'm not sure the best use of 2019 payroll resources is paying bonuses to lock up Berrios, Polanco, *and* Kepler. I think we need to add wins as much as lock up the ones we have.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I am willing to pay a cost this year to get a Berrios extension of team control.

From what I read on it, the problem wasn't the Twins, it was Berrios.

The kid thinks highly of himself, as he should. His price tag is likely linked to that mentality.

 

And good for him.

[bird]

 

You mean like slashing $20 mil in payroll from 2018 to 2019?

 

 

Even if your statement DOES turn out to be true, does it tell you that Falvey has financial restrictions imposed on him of the kind you might like to envision? Show us factual evidence that this FO wanted to do something and was blocked by its Board of Directors.

 

Exactly.

 

[bird]

 

 

 

And, why not sign a FA I believe in?

 

 

Fixed this for you, Michael. 

[Joe A. Preusser]

From what I read on it, the problem wasn't the Twins, it was Berrios.

The kid thinks highly of himself, as he should. His price tag is likely linked to that mentality.

 

And good for him.

He is also in better shape than Superman, so injury risk is probably lessened.

[howieramone2]

 

Do you have a link? Your memory has been demonstrably proven fallible several times recently...

 

If you're referring to Roster Resource, they estimate the Twins 2019 payroll at $123 mil right now -- but that's not opening day payroll -- they include 31 guys to get that number, with only 1 (Sano) slated for the DL right now. That shouldn't be directly compared to last year's opening day payroll (which was only the salaries of the 25 man roster plus MLB DL as of opening day -- edit to add: plus the cut Anibal Sanchez).

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-minnesota-twins-info/

 

Cot's opening day payroll is based on 26 guys including Sano. (No option buyouts, though, which would represent another $2 mil for the Twins if you want to include them: $1 mil each for Ervin and Morrison. Cot's is consistent about excluding buyouts across the site, though. I might ask them about that!)

I don't take requests and my memory is outstanding. I'm just not as slick as some of you guys.

[goulik]

The current ownership family has been in charge for 35 years. Are they likely involved with every contract offer? No. Are they setting a total payroll budget every year? Certainly.

I’m not sure how old you are or how much you have paid close attention to their budgets but the ownership money thing is so old and over used it’s annoying. When push has come to shove over those 35 years I have seen ownership ante up repeatedly.

 

Kirby Puckett got paid much to the surprise of many around here

Ownership went out and got the key free agents for a run in 88, 91, and 92

 

Then came the miserable dome years when Twins revenue was still being pumped into the Vikings and other downtown projects and almost got us contracted

 

Everyone remembers how close we were with Johan, the soul patrol, etc and money was an issue.

 

New stadium but too late. Ownership ponies up big time as soon as we get the new stadium for Joe and Justin. Big contracts as promised.

 

Then the concussions and endless rebuilds. Throughout that time I never honestly saw a time where it was worth it to try and jump in and make a big push.

 

Until they did. They pushed our budget out to record numbers, get next to no credit for it with the fans and the whole team, especially the young stars, takes a step back.

 

They made wise investments this off season and have themselves in good position to make a push if the youngsters come around. This long history people refer to is not as solid an arguement as you think and I’m sure I’m not the only one annoyed with having to hear it all the time.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I’m not sure how old you are or how much you have paid close attention to their budgets but the ownership money thing is so old and over used it’s annoying. When push has come to shove over those 35 years I have seen ownership ante up repeatedly.

Kirby Puckett got paid much to the surprise of many around here
Ownership went out and got the key free agents for a run in 88, 91, and 92

Then came the miserable dome years when Twins revenue was still being pumped into the Vikings and other downtown projects and almost got us contracted

Everyone remembers how close we were with Johan, the soul patrol, etc and money was an issue.

New stadium but too late. Ownership ponies up big time as soon as we get the new stadium for Joe and Justin. Big contracts as promised.

Then the concussions and endless rebuilds. Throughout that time I never honestly saw a time where it was worth it to try and jump in and make a big push.

Until they did. They pushed our budget out to record numbers, get next to no credit for it with the fans and the whole team, especially the young stars, takes a step back.

They made wise investments this off season and have themselves in good position to make a push if the youngsters come around. This long history people refer to is not as solid an arguement as you think and I’m sure I’m not the only one annoyed with having to hear it all the time.

 

They had numerous holes last year, and filled them with mediocre players. They would have been better filling less holes from the outside, with better players, and filling other holes with cheap internal options. They were universally lauded on this site for their bargains, not the great players they signed.

 

Yes, they pushed the budget up, but that doesn't mean they did it well. Learning that spending isn't the answer is the wrong lesson.....the lesson is to pay for good players, not mediocre players.

[bird]

Personally, I empathize with points that get made on both sides of the payroll budget thing. I cringe at two things. One, with extreme and invariably distorted points of view on either side of the argument, particularly when it involves to classless name-calling and such; and two, with myopic declarations that simply cutting more checks is the answer with no real openness as to why said check-writing may be prudent to avoid.

 

Things like "they've never ponied up for an ace" stuff with zero acknowledgment that an argument against such a move has at least some logic. Instead, things devolve into the "they only care about hoarding their wealth" and "they don't want to win", that sort of nonsense.

 

Gibson: I'd personally love to see them reach an agreement to keep him here. As long as the contract allows for him to be moved with some reasonable return in prospects when he becomes a surplus asset.

[Mike Sixel]

I too would love to see him signed here. I'd go 4 years. I have no idea what amount is "fair" these days, though. I doubt he'd be "worth" his deal in year four, but then, he'd be more than worth it the first two years, something some seem to forget when analyzing efficiency.

[howieramone2]

 

They had numerous holes last year, and filled them with mediocre players. They would have been better filling less holes from the outside, with better players, and filling other holes with cheap internal options. They were universally lauded on this site for their bargains, not the great players they signed.

 

Yes, they pushed the budget up, but that doesn't mean they did it well. Learning that spending isn't the answer is the wrong lesson.....the lesson is to pay for good players, not mediocre players.

This is really vague. Can you share with the board exactly who they should have signed? This sounds like hindsight to me.

[yarnivek1972]

Even if your statement DOES turn out to be true, does it tell you that Falvey has financial restrictions imposed on him of the kind you might like to envision? Show us factual evidence that this FO wanted to do something and was blocked by its Board of Directors.

 

Exactly.

That’s an absurd standard.

 

The only people who know what the payroll budget is are employed by the Twins.

 

Do you have any first hand factual evidence Falvey wasn’t stopped by the Board from going over budget?

 

Exactly.

 

 

The bottom line is that this organization has been bottom 1/3 in the league in payroll for all but 3 seasons out of the last 10.

 

When THAT changes, maybe I’ll believe the Twins’ stance on spending has changed.

[goulik]

They had numerous holes last year, and filled them with mediocre players. They would have been better filling less holes from the outside, with better players, and filling other holes with cheap internal options. They were universally lauded on this site for their bargains, not the great players they signed.

 

Yes, they pushed the budget up, but that doesn't mean they did it well. Learning that spending isn't the answer is the wrong lesson.....the lesson is to pay for good players, not mediocre players.

That’s not an ownership issue, that’s a falvine issue

[KGB]

 

The bottom line is that this organization has been bottom 1/3 in the league in payroll for all but 3 seasons out of the last 10.

When THAT changes, maybe I’ll believe the Twins’ stance on spending has changed.

Also revenue was bottom 1/3 in the league, maybe the two are related.

[Tomj14]

 

I too would love to see him signed here. I'd go 4 years. I have no idea what amount is "fair" these days, though. I doubt he'd be "worth" his deal in year four, but then, he'd be more than worth it the first two years, something some seem to forget when analyzing efficiency.

I would do 4/60, but it isn't my money. I don't think 15 million a year is a bad amount for a 2/3 starter.

Eovaldi got 4/68 while he is two years younger, has he been that much better than Gibson?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Even if your statement DOES turn out to be true, does it tell you that Falvey has financial restrictions imposed on him of the kind you might like to envision? Show us factual evidence that this FO wanted to do something and was blocked by its Board of Directors.

 

Exactly.

Factual evidence likely doesn’t exist, but I think the FO did have implicit financial restrictions, to keep payroll down. And then I think they persuaded JP otherwise, and spent anyway. And good on them.

[Mike Sixel]

That’s not an ownership issue, that’s a falvine issue

Agreed.

[howieramone2]

 

Agreed.

Falvey and Levine are very good. Ownership not so much.

[nicksaviking]

 

This is really vague. Can you share with the board exactly who they should have signed? This sounds like hindsight to me.

 

It's not hindsight. As far as free agents go I've been pushing for quality over quantity for a long time and I'm pretty sure Mike has held the same position. It's definitely not a rare opinion around here.

[twinkiesfan11]

It's not hindsight. As far as free agents go I've been pushing for quality over quantity for a long time and I'm pretty sure Mike has held the same position. It's definitely not a rare opinion around here.

Quality players that want to play for your team at a reasonable price that fit your internal analytical model of performance over the duration of the contract probably isn’t as abundantly available as you assume. Falvey and Levine have both made statements regarding free agency and the desire to pay for expected future performance rather than past performance. I think that’s an interesting peak under the hood as to their thought process and some of the free agents they’ve chosen not to pursue.

[nicksaviking]

 

Quality players that want to play for your team at a reasonable price that fit your internal analytical model of performance over the duration of the contract probably isn’t as abundantly available as you assume. Falvey and Levine have both made statements regarding free agency and the desire to pay for expected future performance rather than past performance. I think that’s an interesting peak under the hood as to their thought process and some of the free agents they’ve chosen not to pursue.

 

I don't disagree and I have little interest in paying players who have already peaked. I also haven't seen many players I'd actually want to have on the team long term in the past two free agent crops. Personally I thought there was probably next to no chance Harper or Machado would come to Minnesota even if the Twins made them the best offer. 

 

I don't know that we can judge the current front office on quality vs quantity since I don't think there was attainable quality available. The skepticism still lingers from the past front office though as ownership is still the same. There were definitely missed opportunities back then.

[Mike Sixel]

How many years would it have to be, for this FO, to be judged on their willingness and ability, to sign quality FAs vs bargain FAs? (I think their new DH is quality, and not cheap, so maybe they've already proved it, though their lack of action in the RP market belies that ,imo).

[dbminn]

 

How many years would it have to be, for this FO, to be judged on their willingness and ability, to sign quality FAs vs bargain FAs? (I think their new DH is quality, and not cheap, so maybe they've already proved it, though their lack of action in the RP market belies that ,imo).

 

I enjoy the rare posts where you debate yourself. This comment is realistic and spot on. 

 

RE: Your question. One more year, if the core of young veterans stay healthy and win games. That'll put the pressure on Falvey to bring in some quality pitching.

[nicksaviking]

 

How many years would it have to be, for this FO, to be judged on their willingness and ability, to sign quality FAs vs bargain FAs? (I think their new DH is quality, and not cheap, so maybe they've already proved it, though their lack of action in the RP market belies that ,imo).

 

What quality free agents are you upset about missing out on? I only count Harper and Machado this year and there was no way they were ever coming to Minnesota even if the Twins had the best offer.

 

I've changed my tune since last year, I did want Darvish, but I have no interest in giving pitchers long term deals anymore unless we're talking about a young guy we're extending. But even if I hadn't changed my tune, there wasn't a pitcher available this year that I would have liked on a long term deal.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What quality free agents are you upset about missing out on? I only count Harper and Machado this year and there was no way they were ever coming to Minnesota even if the Twins had the best offer.

 

I've changed my tune since last year, I did want Darvish, but I have no interest in giving pitchers long term deals anymore unless we're talking about a young guy we're extending. But even if I hadn't changed my tune, there wasn't a pitcher available this year that I would have liked on a long term deal.

 

I'm talking about three years so far......not one year. Hence, "how many years" was in the question. If teams lock up the really good players, you better be willing to trade minor leaguers, because no team is built fully from within....

 

edit: there were RPs they could have signed for 2 years, and we'll see what Kuechel gets. It isn't JUST about long term deals. And, yes, FAs often don't work out. Neither do minor league players, many of whom put up negative value (esp RPs).