What do we think Twins payroll REALLY will be?

[John Bonnes]

I'm not looking for a lot of drumbeating here on what it SHOULD be. I'm wondering what we think it will be when the dust settles this offseason. In the Offseason Handbook, we totaled about $68M.  Add to that:

 

+18M for Odo

+ 20M for another top five pitcher (assuming it won't be Strassburg or Cole)

+10M for yet another starting pitcher

+15M for some other players: Cron, a backup catcher, maybe a reliever

 

That brings us to $131M. To make it more even, I will set the over-under on payroll at $130M this year. What do we think? Will it be over or under that number, and how do you think it will go. 

 

(I'll take the under.) 

[rdehring]

Tough number, John.

 

If the Twins should be so fortunate to sign one of the top four starters (I include Wheeler and the Giant lefty who's spelling I don't want to butcher) they will be over your $130 million.  If they aren't successful in signing one of them, I would hope they will be under.  

 

With that said and needing to pick one, I will go with the over...based on my being hopeful they are successful in their hunting trip.

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm not looking for a lot of drumbeating here on what it SHOULD be. I'm wondering what we think it will be when the dust settles this offseason. In the Offseason Handbook, we totaled about $68M.  Add to that:

 

 

 

The baseline without Odorizzi is $75.7M using MLB rumors projected arbitration amounts assuming Cron is tendered an offer. So, that's 93.5M with Odorizzi. I don't know where they will end up because it will depend a great deal on if they can get a top SP to sign here. My guess is they surpass your number because I want to believe they sign an impact SP. $138-140M is my guess.

[beckmt]

The Twins window is wide open.  I will be very disappointed if the number is not around $150.  This assumes they sign one of the top 5 starters (I believe they have to in order to kick the window fully open). I am actually hoping for either Cole  or Wheeler. The other choice would be to move Sano to first (and maybe do both) and sign one of the top 3B (Rendon (which probably won't happen), Donaldson (my choice), or Moose). Plus add a reliever and you will be close to $150.

[bunsen82]

I am going to take the over.   I think it will be due more to opportunity that arrives that will allow Falvey and Levine to show the value is there for a decent shot at the championship.  As much as you have the year to year operations a championship adds something like $250 Million in value to the organization.  Incremental improvements add to the chance and winning it all.  Also with more marketable players attendence, novelty sales ect should be up to help pay for any additional salary. 

 

I think Wheeler is the primary target, and Pineda as the #4.  I think money will be spent on relievers, and I see Sano moving over to 1st and the Twins being a surprise suitor for Moustakas.  His style of play will fit in very well into this lineup and his production has come fairly cheap.   Plus he is willing to play for midwestern teams.   He's not just an east coast west coast guy that uses the twins as a negotiation advantage. 

[dex8425]

What I would like it to be: 150m

What I think it will be: 116m

 

I would take the under. I am expecting the Twins to sign somebody like Homer Bailey instead of someone like Zack Wheeler. We are not getting Cole or Strasberg. The Twins are not going to offer a 6 year deal at 30m a year. 

[Shaitan]

I expect $120-$140, depending what they do with extensions. If there are extensions, I could see 2020 being a bit lower in preparation for future years taking the hit. So your $130 estimate falls right in the middle of that and I agree.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I would bet under $130 mm

 

Then again, I predicted it would be under $100 million last season, based on comments Pohlad had made right after the season ended. But the boys went and spent his money anyway—good on them.

[gunnarthor]

Under. 

 

To look at John's numbers and where the under comes in - 

+18M for Odo 

 

Well, this happened. Durable but not really an innings eater.

 

+ 20M for another top five pitcher (assuming it won't be Strassburg or Cole) 

+10M for yet another starting pitcher

 

30m for two pitchers. I don't think that happens at all. Basically, I think we'll spend about 15m on two more pitchers in the Ivan Nova or Drew Pomeranz bucket. Nova was a surprisingly effective starter in Chicago last year. 2 WAR and nearly 200 innings. Can't strike anyone out. And Pomeranz can do the starter/bullpen shuffle if need be and is a year removed from a 4 WAR season in Boston. I think we 'll be linked to guys like Wheeler, Kuechel and Ryu and what not but end up in the lower bins hoping for some upside. It worked with Pineda. And Pomeranz and Nova are better than Perez.

 

+15M for some other players: Cron, a backup catcher, maybe a reliever

 

Maybe about this on Cron, Castro replacement and some bullpen arms but I'd bet this bucket is closer to 10m. 

 

So I think our payroll will be in the 110-115m range rather than the 130m range. We might also see some extensions - presumably Berrios but maybe Odorizzi as well - before spring training. I could see us adding some big pen arms - Chris Martin? Steve Chisek? - and trying to adopt a Rays strategy as well.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Tough number, John.

 

If the Twins should be so fortunate to sign one of the top four starters (I include Wheeler and the Giant lefty who's spelling I don't want to butcher) they will be over your $130 million.  If they aren't successful in signing one of them, I would hope they will be under.  

 

With that said and needing to pick one, I will go with the over...based on my being hopeful they are successful in their hunting trip.

You mean Madison Bumgarner?

[nicksaviking]

Over if they can get Wheeler or Bumgarner (or someone even more impressive) under if they don't.

 

But I'd still expect rotation improvements, so if they don't get those two but instead trade for a starting pitcher(s) who happens to be less expensive, I'm not going to be upset.

 

Presuming it's a pitcher(s) I like that is.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Under. I have no confidence they will go high enough to sign a big time player. I hope to be wrong.

[Seth Stohs]

I think it should be 50% of revenues most years. I also think that a front office has to consider future year's contracts at times too. 

 

If the Twins revenues were at $300 million, it should be between $144 and $156 million. (48% to 52%)

 

My guess is that the number is probably around $280 million which means they should be between $134.4 million and $145.6 million

 

What it WILL be? I'll guess about $130-135. I'm good with that, if I look at the roster at the end of spring training and see a team that should be the favorite in the AL Central and they've addressed the starting rotation to a strong level. 

[Major League Ready]

 

I think it should be 50% of revenues most years. I also think that a front office has to consider future year's contracts at times too. 

 

If the Twins revenues were at $300 million, it should be between $144 and $156 million. (48% to 52%)

 

My guess is that the number is probably around $280 million which means they should be between $134.4 million and $145.6 million

 

What it WILL be? I'll guess about $130-135. I'm good with that, if I look at the roster at the end of spring training and see a team that should be the favorite in the AL Central and they've addressed the starting rotation to a strong level. 

 

I am not sure which FO representative started the hole 50% measure but it makes little sense to use a percentage of revenue as a gauge for spending. It would make some sense if you were selling a product with a relatively static cost of goods sold. However, the Twins product has very little incremental cost. In other words, if the Twins revenue were to climb $30M, there would be very little additional cost to the organization. Therefore they could spend a higher percentage. I guess you have accounted for that in the 48-52% but it's worth nothing the spending capacity as a percentage is higher when revenue goes up substantially.

[Mike Sixel]

I am not sure which FO representative started the hole 50% measure but it makes little sense to use a percentage of revenue as a gauge for spending. It would make some sense if you were selling a product with a relatively static cost of goods sold. However, the Twins product has very little incremental cost. In other words, if the Twins revenue were to climb $30M, there would be very little additional cost to the organization. Therefore they could spend a higher percentage. I guess you have accounted for that in the 48-52% but it's worth nothing the spending capacity as a percentage is higher when revenue goes up substantially.

Right. The non player salary costs don't also increase when revenue and, supposedly, player salaries do.

[scottz]

$136,292,374.05

Approximately.

[nicksaviking]

Judging by what free agents have gotten paid the last two years, I don't know that the budget is based on revenue so much as it's based on a silently acknowledged league-wide "stay in your lane" agreement based on perceived market size.

 

If that's the case, I hope the Twins take into account their current state of competitiveness and interpret their lane as being a freeway.

[Major League Ready]

 

Judging by what free agents have gotten paid the last two years, I don't know that the budget is based on revenue so much as it's based on a silently acknowledged league-wide "stay in your lane" agreement based on perceived market size.

 

If that's the case, I hope the Twins take into account their current state of competitiveness and interpret their lane as being a freeway.

 

I am not sure I understand your point. Market size is basically an absolute and revenue, relatively speaking, is quite predictable when you consider the other side of the equation (player performance) has significant variance. Am I remembering correctly that the twins use previous years revenue in constructing their budget? Regardless, I don't understand the inference that spending is based on a perception.

 

Are you saying that small or mid market teams don't go after the highest dollar free agents because of an understanding among teams to pursue only FAs who profile a certain way based on market size? 

[nicksaviking]

 

I am not sure I understand your point. Market size is basically an absolute and revenue, relatively speaking, is quite predictable when you consider the other side of the equation (player performance) has significant variance. Am I remembering correctly that the twins use previous years revenue in constructing their budget? Regardless, I don't understand the inference that spending is based on a perception.

 

Are you saying that small or mid market teams don't go after the highest dollar free agents because of an understanding among teams to pursue only FAs who profile a certain way based on market size? 

 

Whether it's based on market size or revenue wasn't the point. Teams, even the Twins in 2010, used to stray out of their market size/revenue lane when they were competitive. The last two years not so much, with only St. Louis, who almost every year jumps a weight class or two, going above where they fit into the natural order of things.

 

But if St. Louis is willing to kick sand in the face of the rest of the league, I hope the Twins are willing to do so as well.

[Seth Stohs]

 

I am not sure which FO representative started the hole 50% measure but it makes little sense to use a percentage of revenue as a gauge for spending. It would make some sense if you were selling a product with a relatively static cost of goods sold. However, the Twins product has very little incremental cost. In other words, if the Twins revenue were to climb $30M, there would be very little additional cost to the organization. Therefore they could spend a higher percentage. I guess you have accounted for that in the 48-52% but it's worth nothing the spending capacity as a percentage is higher when revenue goes up substantially.

 

48-52% is the number that the Players Association wants. If they players are good with it, I'm good with it. 

[brvama]

I’ll go under, slightly. I think there will be a trade for a controllable SP plus a second tier signing. As with others if they improve including ab eye to the post season I don’t much care what the final amount is.

[70charger]

 

$136,292,374.05

Approximately.

 

$136,292,374.06.

 

Price is Right rules.

[Danchat]

I'm thinking it will land in the $130Ms. I'll go with $135M on the spot.

 

After the season we had last year, I'd have to believe payroll will increase at least slightly. We landed somewhere in the $120Ms after our couple trades, so I don't think topping $130M will be a stretch.

[labcrazy]

 

Under. I have no confidence they will go high enough to sign a big time player. I hope to be wrong.

 

This

[DocBauer]

I'm taking the under. They bumped to $130M a couple years ago after the late season flourish got them the wild card. They clearly thought they had a chance.

 

Now that the proverbial window appears to be wide open, no reason at all not to meet or exceed the $130M mark.

 

I do offer a caveat however. We all keep pricing next year's budget based on FA targets. If the FO pulls off a smart trade, or two, they might acquire needed arms who's contracts are substantially less. In that case, yes, it could be under.

[scottz]

 

$136,292,374.06.

 

Price is Right rules.

 

I've been sniped.

[ashbury]

 

$136,292,374.05

Approximately.

 

$136,292,374.06.

 

Price is Right rules.

I'll take the Over on scottz's, the under on 70charger's. $136,292,374.05333333... There will be a three-year contract involved.

 

Which implies, as for John's original question, I'll be an optimist on a big-name pitcher, and thus take the over.

[DocBauer]

****typo, I'm taking the over

[sweetmusicviola16]

If they sign one of the second tier of SP they will be right around the 130m mark I estimate. They should go after Cole instead and they'd be at about 145m. 

 

I too have no confidence that they will do either. So I'm taking the under and putting them between 115 and 120m after an extension or two. We will instead be told that they will be ready to strike for the right player mid-season with their coveted financial flexibility.

 

I'm hoping to be proven very wrong this winter.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I like Seth’s logic. I’ll go 135-139. I don’t think they break the 140 threshold.

 

I could envision a scenario where they sign a big fish starter and offload some salary to get back under 140.