Why have the Twins been dumping so much salary and players the last couple years?

[Oxtung]

I think this is too strong. Dempster, sure. If we wanted to trade our best minor league reliever to get Santana for a year, fine. But most of the guys available on one- or two-year deals were not likely to have above-average years. Somewhere between replacement level and average was about what you'd expect. If you look at how they've done so far, you might get my point. Jackson, McCarthy, Marcum, etc. have not fared even as well as Pelfrey.

 

I don't expect either Pelfrey or Correia to have above-average years. I'll be happy for something approaching average, which is what I would hope for in each case on the list available to us. Looking at numbers in the offseason, it seemed less likely for those two than some of the names. But the odds on any of those guys was pretty low. I think Worley could at least be average, if not a little above, and that should count as an acquisition. Two out of three of those guys are rotation holders until Gibson, Meyer and May are ready, anyway.

 

Upshot: it was a pipe dream to think the Twins could build a short-term rotation to help them contend via free agency in a rebuilding year. The best they could reasonably hope for was a rotation that could keep them competitive until the front-line arms are ready. That is what they got. The burden of proof is on you for the claim that they would have done better if they hadn't been so cheap. So far, it isn't looking so good.

 

TFD: Think twice before demanding the Twins spend big in free agency | StarTribune.com

 

There were at least 15 pitchers available this offseason that were average or better. Only 2 of those signed deals longer than 3 seasons. You keep talking as if there was this big cluster of average-ish pitchers that were available this off season and you're right there were a bunch. Unfortunately the Twins didn't get one of those. We instead signed the second to worst starter that received a contract this off season. He was carrying an ERA+ of 78 the last 3 seasons. We also signed Pelfrey who even when healthy is below average. Of course as we all know he wasn't healthy to start the season and we knew that was going to be the case...yet we still signed him.

 

You keep trying to lump Correia and Pelfrey into the "mediocre" catagory as you put it and they just aren't.

 

BTW...that article you linked to is worthless...just a couple of anecdotes with no statistics to show if the authors suppositions are true.

[cmathewson]

That's cherry picking bad teams from the high payroll ranks. We could do the same with the bottom payroll teams which the Twins are one of. Looks like the Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, Rangers, Giants, Cardinals, Nationals and Reds didn't make your list of teams spending over $100 million. The Cubs by the way have the 14th highest payroll and only 10 teams make the playoffs.

 

Say the Twins did sign Anibal Sanchez instead of Mike Pelfrey, and to get him away from Detroit, they gave him an extra $2 million a year, they still wouldn't be in the top 14. Or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19.

 

When every last-place team in every division is spending above $100 million, that's not cherry picking. That's a trend.

[cmathewson]

There were at least 15 pitchers available this offseason that were average or better. Only 2 of those signed deals longer than 3 seasons. You keep talking as if there was this big cluster of average-ish pitchers that were available this off season and you're right there were a bunch. Unfortunately the Twins didn't get one of those. We instead signed the second to worst starter that received a contract this off season. He was carrying an ERA+ of 78 the last 3 seasons. We also signed Pelfrey who even when healthy is below average. Of course as we all know he wasn't healthy to start the season and we knew that was going to be the case...yet we still signed him.

 

You keep trying to lump Correia and Pelfrey into the "mediocre" catagory as you put it and they just aren't.

 

BTW...that article you linked to is worthless...just a couple of anecdotes with no statistics to show if the authors suppositions are true.

 

Well, I guess you define "average or better" a little differently than I do. Maybe they were average or better in recent years. That doesn't mean they are likely to be average or better this year. Past numbers are only a guide to future numbers. Speaking of numbers, how are those 15 pitchers doing this year?

[Oxtung]

When every last-place team in every division is spending above $100 million, that's not cherry picking. That's a trend.

 

Wow...just wow... How do you argue with somebody that is just making up facts?

[ThePuck]

It'd be a trend if it happened all the time. It's not even happening right now and even if it was, it'd be nothing more than a a coincidence. On top of that, there's certainly no evidence they're in last because they spent.

[cmathewson]

Say the Twins did sign Anibal Sanchez instead of Mike Pelfrey, and to get him away from Detroit, they gave him an extra $2 million a year, they still wouldn't be in the top 14. Or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19.

 

Sanchez signed for 5 years and $80M plus a a $16M option with a $5M buyout. I think an $85M commitment is a little bit different than a $4M commitment. Are you even being serious?

[cmathewson]

Wow...just wow... How do you argue with somebody that is just making up facts?

 

They're not my facts. Riverbrian cited them. I was just pointing out that someone called it cherry picking, when, if the facts are right, all of the last place teams in the divisions spent 100M or more. My point was about cherry picking, not the correlation or causation of spending to winning.

[Oxtung]

Well, I guess you define "average or better" a little differently than I do. Maybe they were average or better in recent years. That doesn't mean they are likely to be average or better this year. Past numbers are only a guide to future numbers. Speaking of numbers, how are those 15 pitchers doing this year?

 

I see...so you believe that a pitcher that hasn't even approached being average in the last 5 seasons has a better chance of being average or better than pitchers that have achieved that accomplishment several times in the last 3 seasons? Again, Correia's ERA+ was a 78.

 

You also keep bringing up this seasons stats as if they mean anything in this discussion. Your logic can use some work. All that matters is what was known BEFORE the FA's signed. Unless you think the Toronto Blue Jays should have known Happ was going to get beaned in the head.

[cmathewson]

I see...so you believe that a pitcher that hasn't even approached being average in the last 5 seasons has a better chance of being average or better than pitchers that have achieved that accomplishment several times in the last 3 seasons? Again, Correia's ERA+ was a 78.

 

You also keep bringing up this seasons stats as if they mean anything in this discussion. Your logic can use some work. All that matters is what was known BEFORE the FA's signed. Unless you think the Toronto Blue Jays should have known Happ was going to get beaned in the head.

 

You don't read, do you? Well, here is it is again.

 

And I'll try to use smaller words.

 

And type them one line at a time so you don't get lost.

 

The Twins needed to sign two FA pitchers out of the 15 options.

 

Only one (Demptster) or perhaps two (?) of the 15 options were likely to be above average this year, all things considered (numbers, health, age).

 

The rest of the options were unlikely to be average this year.

 

The options they chose were less likely (by the numbers) to be average than some of the 15 on the list.

 

The difference in the odds of being average between the pitchers they signed and didn't sign was not that great, all things considered.

 

Odds are, none of the options would change the team's fortunes much.

 

Season stats are just small evidence at this point that signing FA pitchers produces unpredictable results.

 

But, we don't have anything else to go on at this point, except more predictions based on marginal differences between the collective pile of mediocrity the Twins had to choose from this past offseason.

 

Clear enough for you?

[nicksaviking]

When every last-place team in every division is spending above $100 million, that's not cherry picking. That's a trend.

 

Well the average payroll is $103 million and it's barely being swayed by the Yankees and Dodgers considering 14 teams are over $100 million. While the 5 teams Riverbrian listed are struggling, 8 are doing well. The only team under $100 million this year that could be considered a serious WS contender would be the Braves at $89 million.

 

I agree, payroll isn't everything, but considering the Twins could have spent an additional $20 million this year and still not have been on the happy side of $100 million, they certainly could have made a better effort to bring in better talent, even if they were just rental players.

[Willihammer]

But, we don't have anything else to go on at this point, except more predictions based on marginal differences between the collective pile of mediocrity the Twins had to choose from this past offseason.

 

A marginal difference is still a difference. We're talking about a .500 ballclub here.

[nicksaviking]

Only one (Demptster) or perhaps two (?) of the 15 options were likely to be above average this year, all things considered (numbers, health, age).

 

The options they chose were less likely (by the numbers) to be average than some of the 15 on the list.

 

The difference in the odds of being average between the pitchers they signed and didn't sign was not that great, all things considered.

 

Clear enough for you?

 

No. So you admit that at least some options had the chance to be "average" and you also admit that the guys the Twins signed had even less of a chance at being "average." So why did the Twins sign the ones they did instead of the guys with a higher likelyhood of being "average?" Payroll should not have been an issue.

[nicksaviking]

Sanchez signed for 5 years and $80M plus a a $16M option with a $5M buyout. I think an $85M commitment is a little bit different than a $4M commitment. Are you even being serious?

 

I wasn't comparing the two, I was pointing out that had the Twins signed Sanchez, they would not have needed to sign Pelfrey and would have basically gotten a $4 million dollar in-store credit they could have used toward the purchase of their Sanchez.

[drjim]

The 6 week mark is a little premature to make those judgments one way or the other IMHO. Certainly if none of the 30-odd FA SP candidates proves to be better than what we had in-house coming into 2013, t hen Ryan is nothing short of a genius and a prophet.

 

Well sure some of the 30 will do better than who the Twins signed. Some will do worse, some will get hurt and most will probably do similar. I think it is easy to criticize who was signed, pretty much anyone they signed was going to be criticized - mostly because it was going to be underwhelming because of the nature of the poor free agent class.

[drjim]

The problem with Jim's argument is that his other arguments tell the real story. He has taken a difficult stance - that you should never sign deals with risk. As if those exist. Congrats, you sir have trumped us all in the race for "most difficult" stance.

 

Now please let those of us not content with absurd notions discuss.

 

Cool story.

[Willihammer]

Well sure some of the 30 will do better than who the Twins signed. Some will do worse, some will get hurt and most will probably do similar. I think it is easy to criticize who was signed, pretty much anyone they signed was going to be criticized - mostly because it was going to be underwhelming because of the nature of the poor free agent class.

Right, "thin."

 

I will give you credit for this Jim. Its almost like we're arguing with Jerry Ryan himself. That is a great boon to my self-inflated sense of importance on the Internet.

[cmathewson]

No. So you admit that at least some options had the chance to be "average" and you also admit that the guys the Twins signed had even less of a chance at being "average." So why did the Twins sign the ones they did instead of the guys with a higher likelyhood of being "average?" Payroll should not have been an issue.

 

The Twins had a different opinion than I did on the available pitchers. But I have limited access to the whole data set. And I don't think the differences were all that great in the final analysis. I didn't think any of them was likely to be above average. The reason they are free agents is their teams don't really want them anymore, despite the fact that everybody needs pitching. You can occasionally get lucky with a retread (Jack Morris, e.g.). But it is too rare to rely on it.

 

I never defended the Correia signing. But the Twins liked him well enough to spend more than FanGraphs said he's worth. On the other hand, I'm no scout, so I assumed they saw something that made them prefer him. They say it's about innings. I have no reason to doubt them.

 

I thought the Pelfrey signing was a decent long shot. Since they only had room for two (Diamond, Worley and Gibson taking the other slots, plus depth), I didn't have a problem with it.

 

Yes, they could have spent more money. I just don't think it would have made that much difference, except for Dempster or acquiring I. Santana, and I never really felt they had a legit chance to get either anyway. So I didn't get worked up about it.

 

And I certainly don't think it's part of some grand conspiracy to rob taxpayers out of their give-a-penny-take-a-penny stadium tax.

[Oxtung]

You don't read, do you? Well, here is it is again.

 

And I'll try to use smaller words.

 

And type them one line at a time so you don't get lost.

 

The Twins needed to sign two FA pitchers out of the 15 options.

 

Only one (Demptster) or perhaps two (?) of the 15 options were likely to be above average this year, all things considered (numbers, health, age).

 

The rest of the options were unlikely to be average this year.

 

The options they chose were less likely (by the numbers) to be average than some of the 15 on the list.

 

The difference in the odds of being average between the pitchers they signed and didn't sign was not that great, all things considered.

 

Odds are, none of the options would change the team's fortunes much.

 

Season stats are just small evidence at this point that signing FA pitchers produces unpredictable results.

 

But, we don't have anything else to go on at this point, except more predictions based on marginal differences between the collective pile of mediocrity the Twins had to choose from this past offseason.

 

Clear enough for you?

 

Your small words and paragraph spacing has convinced me.

 

There is almost no difference between the previously average or better pitchers and what the Twins signed because 93% of the FA pitchers are going to regress significantly this year where as Correia and Pelfrey are not.

 

The Twins clearly shouldn't try to improve their ball club this season because the odds of them doing well are small.

 

Finally, all GM's should have factored in the results of the 2013 season before they signed the FA's in 2012.

[jokin]

The Twins had a different opinion than I did on the available pitchers. But I have limited access to the whole data set. And I don't think the differences were all that great in the final analysis. I didn't think any of them was likely to be above average. The reason they are free agents is their teams don't really want them anymore, despite the fact that everybody needs pitching. You can occasionally get lucky with a retread (Jack Morris, e.g.). But it is too rare to rely on it.

 

I never defended the Correia signing. But the Twins liked him well enough to spend more than FanGraphs said he's worth. On the other hand, I'm no scout, so I assumed they saw something that made them prefer him. They say it's about innings. I have no reason to doubt them.

 

I thought the Pelfrey signing was a decent long shot. Since they only had room for two (Diamond, Worley and Gibson taking the other slots, plus depth), I didn't have a problem with it.

 

Yes, they could have spent more money. I just don't think it would have made that much difference, except for Dempster or acquiring I. Santana, and I never really felt they had a legit chance to get either anyway. So I didn't get worked up about it.

 

And I certainly don't think it's part of some grand conspiracy to rob taxpayers out of their give-a-penny-take-a-penny stadium tax.

 

And yet, other clubs had bad years and got right back up on their horses and went about retooling/reloading/rebuilding in one offseason and not cutting payroll. Furthermore, FA prices will be going up in the future, especially with the $25M infusion from the TV deal. These other clubs read the writing on the wall, why NOT the Twins?

 

By contrast, the conspiracy of cutting payroll by the Twins is right there in front of us, for all to see. And we're only in Year Two of the payroll-cutting. I was practically tarred and feathered all last year for saying the Twins were going to do what they actually had been doing, and then continued to do in the offseason, and appear more than happy to repeat next offseason. Can you find me the quote again from management about the "50% commitment" to the loyal and faithful fans for building them TF?

[ThePuck]

Can you find me the quote again from management about the "50% commitment" to the loyal and faithful fans for building them TF?

 

One of my favorite parts:

 

In a question-and-answer session with reporters in a conference room overlooking a snow-covered Target Field, Pohlad dismissed the notion that the team has been trying to disprove a tightfisted reputation.

 

"We're not trying to show people," he said. "We're trying to do what we said we're going to do."

 

Owner Jim Pohlad reiterates Minnesota Twins' desire to retain catcher Joe Mauer - ESPN

 

[nicksaviking]

Owner Jim Pohlad reiterates Minnesota Twins' desire to retain catcher Joe Mauer - ESPN

 

 

Nice link but Jim Pohlad was depressingly optimistic:

 

This year, though, the payroll will rise by roughly $30 million to a team record above $95 million.

 

"All new ballparks have their peaks, and I'm sure the initial years will be very good to the Twins," Pohlad said. "Then it'll be up to us to sustain it after that, but the ballpark itself I think can sustain it for a long time."

[cmathewson]

There is almost no difference between the previously average or better pitchers and what the Twins signed because 93% of the FA pitchers are going to regress significantly this year where as Correia and Pelfrey are not.

 

Still not getting it. They all were going to regress significantly, Correia and Pelfrey included. None of them would be able to help the team win. In the final analysis, it didn't really matter whom they signed, as long as they could get some innings. That is what I have been saying.

[cmathewson]

And yet, other clubs had bad years and got right back up on their horses and went about retooling/reloading/rebuilding in one offseason and not cutting payroll. Furthermore, FA prices will be going up in the future, especially with the $25M infusion from the TV deal. These other clubs read the writing on the wall, why NOT the Twins?

 

By contrast, the conspiracy of cutting payroll by the Twins is right there in front of us, for all to see. And we're only in Year Two of the payroll-cutting. I was practically tarred and feathered all last year for saying the Twins were going to do what they actually had been doing, and then continued to do in the offseason, and appear more than happy to repeat next offseason. Can you find me the quote again from management about the "50% commitment" to the loyal and faithful fans for building them TF?

 

Still not getting it. Tooling/retooling has less to do with payroll as with roster construction, at least this year. Payroll is one small consideration. You repeatedly try to make it all about payroll, as though a team can't rebuild and cut payroll at the same time. But most teams coincidentally cut payroll as they rebuild because young players cost less.

[Guest USAFChief]

When every last-place team in every division is spending above $100 million, that's not cherry picking. That's a trend.

When did Houston and Miami get relegated to AAA? I need to start paying closer attention.

[drjim]

Right, "thin."

 

I will give you credit for this Jim. Its almost like we're arguing with Jerry Ryan himself. That is a great boon to my self-inflated sense of importance on the Internet.

 

I stand corrected - the clearly robust free agent pitching market that included one top of the rotation guy, one decent 2-3 type, a 3-4 type or two and a bunch of backend guys. Huge depth there.

 

Just because Terry Ryan says something doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

[nicksaviking]

Still not getting it. Tooling/retooling has less to do with payroll as with roster construction, at least this year. Payroll is one small consideration. You repeatedly try to make it all about payroll, as though a team can't rebuild and cut payroll at the same time. But most teams coincidentally cut payroll as they rebuild because young players cost less.

 

No one is under that assumption. It is the opposite that some people are having problems grasping. Some are under the impression that a rebuild REQUIRES cutting payroll.

 

It comes down to this:

 

Player A costs $100 and has a 60% chance of being a useful player for you this year.

Player B costs $50 and has a 30% chance of being a useful player for you this year.

 

If money is supposedly not a factor, why would you not chose player A?

[nicksaviking]

Just because Terry Ryan says something doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

 

Are we required to believe what he says is right?

[ashbury]

considering the Twins could have spent an additional $20 million this year and still not have been on the happy side of $100 million

 

Depends on who is asking you to make them happy.

[drjim]

Are we required to believe what he says is right?

 

Not at all. But I would wager he is right about baseball matters more often than any of us are.

[ThePuck]

Not at all. But I would wager he is right about baseball matters more often than any of us are.

 

I was wondering when this card would be used...