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

[Oxtung]

See the thread on pitchers we didn't sign. All but three (Dempster, Villenueva, Correia) of the available free agents who had a chance to be average or above regressed to replacement level or below, at least so far.

 

I see you still believe that GM's should factor in the 2013 results into their offers to 2012 FA's.

 

I like how I went back and looked at 2 complete seasons worth of data showing that your premise doesn't hold water and you still come back to it.

[drjim]

Let's make this direct and play in your ballpark. Exactly who in the next two years should we be bidding on in FA and for how much. (Careful about not "hamstringing" the future payroll and about what an "above average" pitcher by your definition is)

 

I eagerly await the removal of hypotheticals on your part.

 

My best guess is they will sign no one but a trade strikes me as likely. There will be very few above average starters on the market the next two years.

[launchingthrees]

If it's just innings you're looking for then neither Pelfrey nor Correia were perticularly good signings. Deduno, De Vries, Hendricks, Hermsen, May, Swarzak, Duensing, Rule 5 pick or [insert AAAA starter here] could have provided them.

 

Or the Twins could have targeted a FA starter that actually has provided a lot of innings over the last 3 years:

 

Guthrie 599 IP

Haren 650 IP

Greinke 604 IP

Sanchez 587 IP

Dempster 590 IP

Jackson 599 IP

Marcum 520 IP

 

Instead we ended up with Correia 470 IP and Pelfrey 417 IP. Seems like "injury prone/concern" Marcum still managed to end up with more innings than Correia and Pelfrey. Hell, Liriano and Lohse both pitched more than Correia.

 

Awesome. I was going to do something like this but was pretty sure he'd just shift the goalposts again so i didn't bother.

[drjim]

To call what this group does analysis is generous It's mostly rationalizing, not understanding statistics(awesome ERA W-L comparisons in the pitcher thread). I mean i understand the twins defending their payroll but for consumers to take that line is pretty bizarre. Cutting payroll from 110m-76m because of weak free agent classes is laughable.

 

So you assume people don't understand statistics quite like you. Interesting.

 

And I don't particularly care what the payroll ends up at. I care about moves made and results. That is what drives how much money I spend on the team and how much time I take tracking results.

[TheLeviathan]

My best guess is they will sign no one but a trade strikes me as likely. There will be very few above average starters on the market the next two years.

 

So....to avoid taking on risk in free agency you propose they trade assets that could be used in the future success of the ball-club (assets you value so highly you don't dare sign a good player in FA and risk not being able to retain. But trading them away is apparently fine) to get a pitcher for...a year? two? Before you inevitably let them go because they want a big, risky deal?

 

Explain how trading significant assets for a player you wouldn't retain is a better path than using up 15-20M of the 60-70 you have available that won't cost you prospects? I'm confused.

 

And if they add no one...is it your position that you've basically conceded we'll have to get extremely lucky and get enough talent together in a 3-4 year pre-arby window to win a championship and then return to a rebuild?

[IdahoPilgrim]

To call what this group does analysis is generous It's mostly rationalizing, not understanding statistics(awesome ERA W-L comparisons in the pitcher thread). I mean i understand the twins defending their payroll but for consumers to take that line is pretty bizarre. Cutting payroll from 110m-76m because of weak free agent classes is laughable.

 

That statement cuts both ways, of course. I've seen that done on all sides of this issue.

[drjim]

So....to avoid taking on risk in free agency you propose they trade assets that could be used in the future success of the ball-club (assets you value so highly you don't dare sign a good player in FA and risk not being able to retain. But trading them away is apparently fine) to get a pitcher for...a year? two? Before you inevitably let them go because they want a big, risky deal?

 

Explain how trading significant assets for a player you wouldn't retain is a better path than using up 15-20M of the 60-70 you have available that won't cost you prospects? I'm confused.

 

And if they add no one...is it your position that you've basically conceded we'll have to get extremely lucky and get enough

talent together in a 3-4 year pre-arby window to win a championship and then return to a rebuild?

 

The majority of improvement will have to come from within.

 

The trade will not be Buxton Sano or Arcia but some of the other depth in the system.

 

I never have thought Sanchez or Greinke were realistic options for a variety of reasons that have been discussed many times. I'm not necessarily opposed to all spending, just the actual contracts that would have had to been issued last offseason.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not necessarily opposed to all spending, just the actual contracts that would have had to been issued last offseason.

 

Do you somehow think that price is coming down?

 

And "depth" rarely acquires much top level talent. You also didn't explain if this player would be locked up - shoudl I assume that's a "no"? You're also aware how much risk there is in "going for it" in one or two years right?

[drjim]

Do you somehow think that price is coming down?

 

And "depth" rarely acquires much top level talent. You also didn't explain if this player would be locked up - shoudl I assume that's a "no"? You're also aware how much risk there is in "going for it" in one or two years right?

 

I don't know what pitchers will be available so I don't want to speculate on that.

 

By "depth" I mean guys like Rosario, May, possibly Kepler or Michael type. They have value and could potentially fetch quality pitchers.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't know what pitchers will be available so I don't want to speculate on that.

 

Well, A) That's one of the many problems with your position. You are passing on options you KNOW are available on the speculation of what might be available in the future. I can assure you with the increase in cable money and this thing called "inflation" that the odds of signing above average starting pitching will most assuredly not be going down. So either you're comfortable with those prices or you're not. It's clear you're not, so your distinction about "last offseason" is just more nonsense from you on this. At some point will you just recognize how terribly constructed your arguments are and just stop?

 

By "depth" I mean guys like Rosario, May, possibly Kepler or Michael type. They have value and could potentially fetch quality pitchers.

 

Michael doesn't. And I wouldn't call Rosario "depth". I think he's a pretty damn important part of our future if he sticks in the MI. So to actually answer my question - yes you are willing to move the precious assets you are so scared the team might lose by spending itself out of their arbitration hearings. (Another concept which, on the face of it, is pretty damn laughable)

 

Just to recap:

 

1. You won't sign FA's for any price similar to what was doled out last year but hope future deals are cheaper despite massive new revenue streams and basic economics.

 

2.You are scared the team will overspend and lose arbitration eligible players due to affordability, but have no problems dealing those same players for pitchers you have no intention of retaining because of the concerns in number 1.

 

3. You don't want to speculate on the future availability of players but have repeatedly asserted that this year's FA group is inferior to future ones.

 

That's....that's a doozy of a position you hold right there.

[Kwak]

There has been so much discussion about last year's free agents, but posters have missed the point that FA "buying" should be like buying a top collectable or finding a new job. You don't wait until you have to "buy". One must constantly on the lookout for that player who will make a decisive improvement when he becomes available--and then make your move! True, you "have a job you like" and taking a new one requires that you must let go something you value, (the job you have or one of your rotation) but the reward is worth the risk. Ryan (and the Twins) have typically been myopic and rely on filling immediate needs and try to do so with short-term, bargain-basement contracts. That strategy is unsound and generally leads to disappointing results.

[nicksaviking]

By "depth" I mean guys like Rosario, May, possibly Kepler or Michael type. They have value and could potentially fetch quality pitchers.

 

So the Twins trade future contributors to the team to get the needed pitching instead of signing free agents? Why? To save money? Or do you think it's a safer bet to give away the yongsters than to sign a free agent? If so, I'd check with Toronto to see how they feel about Dickey, Johnson and Buehrle right about now.

[old nurse]

So the Twins trade future contributors to the team to get the needed pitching instead of signing free agents? Why? To save money? Or do you think it's a safer bet to give away the yongsters than to sign a free agent? If so, I'd check with Toronto to see how they feel about Dickey, Johnson and Buehrle right about now.

How do the Cubs feel about all of their FA pitchers right now?

[Oxtung]

How do the Cubs feel about all of their FA pitchers right now?

 

Better than the Blue Jays since they gave up no prospects.....

[diehardtwinsfan]

Wow, page 8 into this thread and lots to say. I have to disagree a bit with you Brock on Sanchez. He's entering his 29 season, so to think he couldn't be a decent value through 5 years is somewhat silly. I get that there's risk there, but much less than say a Grienke or something like that. Also, while Detroit signed him for 5/88, I'm guessing the Twins would have needed to go 5/95 to 5/100 to get him (assuming Detroit was done)... That said, even at 20M/yr, I don't see how he's hamstringing this team. Payroll will go down next year and then start to rise (albeit very slow). He comes off the payroll right when Meyer, Arcia, Hicks, etc. start getting expensive. This doesn't hamstring the team in any way, as most of the team will be making the minimum.

 

Where I'll grant you the risk on a guy like Sanchez is this: Part of rebuilding involves drafting higher and high INT FA bonus amounts because you suck. Spending to buy a few wins will get you those wins (not as many as you might think), but it also lowers your draft position and bonus pools. Another year of sucktitude means that the Twins will still likely be picking in the top 10 next season with a chance to get what would amount to a Manaea type player in a much stronger draft. That does have value that is hard to quantify as it means having another very good player to plug in for an ineffective player or a departing FA.

 

I'm not sure I'm willing to defend the front office. Their pitching decisions were head scratchers... and that's that. Had they gotten Sanchez, they might already have another 3 or 4 wins, not to mention he fills a need that the next wave will likely have. Even if by a miracle the Twins get Gray/Appel, I would argue that odds say that Sanchez would still be a more effective pitcher in 2015/16 than 1 or more of Gray/Meyer/May/Gibson, as at least one of those guys will flop bad and at least 1 will get hurt bad.

[TheLeviathan]

How do the Cubs feel about all of their FA pitchers right now?

 

Probably not bad. They have some disappointments (Jackson and Baker) and some real positives (Feldman and Vilanueva). Nothing is certain - trades, FA, and certainly not prospect development....so I'm not sure where you think this gives you higher ground?

 

If I'm the Cubs and I had a ton of money to spend and two of my signings are having good, surprisingly solid starts....I'd be far more thrilled with that than I would be disappointed with the others. Because they took something they had a lot of (cash) and turned it into something they needed (talent assets)

[old nurse]

Better than the Blue Jays since they gave up no prospects.....

I guess I needed to make my point clearer as I got a smart answer. There are several avenues to get better. The free agency way doesn't always work (Cubs, Dodgers), trading for established players doesn't always work, (Jays, Dodgers). You can have examples where these approaches have worked (historically the Yankees, Boston for FA, KC for trades. Trading for talent has it's ups and downs (see Oakland)

[old nurse]

Probably not bad. They have some disappointments (Jackson and Baker) and some real positives (Feldman and Vilanueva). Nothing is certain - trades, FA, and certainly not prospect development....so I'm not sure where you think this gives you higher ground?

 

If I'm the Cubs and I had a ton of money to spend and two of my signings are having good, surprisingly solid starts....I'd be far more thrilled with that than I would be disappointed with the others. Because they took something they had a lot of (cash) and turned it into something they needed (talent assets)

 

 

See last point about needing to make everything crystal clear for some people. Cubs. Big ticket item sucking. Feldman was a one year fill in. See the contract. Yes they would be happy with Feldman. But what they have paid the most money for is not doing well (Jackson). They sign Navaro, plays like Butera, Fujikawa and Camp were signed to be the bullpen and they are getting torched. Hairston has a 2 year deal and has a batting average worse than Hicks. Oh yeah, Chicago for their 77 million added just a ton of valuable assets. Historically Soriano has been a huge albatross ever since they got him. Last year's free agent signings got them Maholm (traded), Dejusus (average to less than average and Wood (ret). Back to your point. 2 sighing out of 8 players they signed from other clubs, 1/3 of the roster added from elsewhere. 25% is not great signing for talent you evaluated at the major league level.

[TheLeviathan]

2 sighing out of 8 players they signed from other clubs, 1/3 of the roster added from elsewhere. 25% is not great signing for talent you evaluated at the major league level.

 

So Jackson is a failure as a signing on May friggin 11th? Baker was a high risk that didn't pan out. But Villanueva and Feldman are both doing a nice job. Maholm was flipped for a pretty decent package.

 

They are taking assets that will otherwise not be helping the team (cash) and putting them into helping the team. If that only works 30-40% of the time...how is that any different than a trade or general prospect development?

 

Please get this through your head....no one is saying it's a sure thing. It's just got better odds than DOING NOTHING.

[drjim]

Just to recap:

 

1. You won't sign FA's for any price similar to what was doled out last year but hope future deals are cheaper despite massive new revenue streams and basic economics.

 

It is probably more accurate to say I would not have specifically paid Greinke and Sanchez last offseason the contracts it would have taken to get them. I could have go for the Dempster contract but I read that he was more interested in going to Boston than Minnesota (and I don't really blame him). I saw the rest of the market as more or less the same. The Twins signed Pelfrey and Correia. I preferred McCarthy and Marcum myself, and as of now the Twins did better than my suggestion.

 

2.You are scared the team will overspend and lose arbitration eligible players due to affordability, but have no problems dealing those same players for pitchers you have no intention of retaining because of the concerns in number 1.

 

Not really. My more pertinent argument would be that if you blow your wad on Greinke or Sanchez last offseason it would limit your opportunity to sign a pitcher in 2-3 years when the current minor league core is starting to establish itself in the majors.

 

The point about arby players is that their pay will make up for (and perhaps surpass) the money that is coming off the books via other players, so the payroll, with no additional signings, will look similar to what it has been this year. The team will still have the $20-30 million gap it has (perhaps more if the future revenues come in), but if that was invested in Greinke it would not be available for another starting pitcher.

 

The true risk in this comes from the fact that Greinke could get hurt or start to regress. You will almost certainly get good years at the start of the contract and while a few more wins this year this season would be nice, it won't make the Twins a world series contender. If he is hurt or starts to regress in 2-4 years, that is exactly the timeframe you would want your big (hypothetical) free agent signing at his best to coincide with the rise of the new core.

 

If a pitcher was acquired via trade I would support an extension. I have always advocated extending guys on the roster.

 

3. You don't want to speculate on the future availability of players but have repeatedly asserted that this year's FA group is inferior to future ones.

 

I have said this years crop is "weak" and "thin". I don't remember ever making judgements on the quality of future free agent classes. I have no idea what they will end up being like after extensions and whatnot. As such, I have definitely not repeatedly said that this year's FA group is inferior to future ones. It is possible that future FA crops are also weak or thin or even worse.

 

I appreciate the debate.

[drjim]

So the Twins trade future contributors to the team to get the needed pitching instead of signing free agents? Why? To save money? Or do you think it's a safer bet to give away the yongsters than to sign a free agent? If so, I'd check with Toronto to see how they feel about Dickey, Johnson and Buehrle right about now.

 

Trades give you access to much better pitchers than are available on the free agent market. The lower contract is just a bonus.

 

I would hope they would get someone better than those three. Dickey seemed a little flukeish, Johnson is injury prone (and shockingly hurt again), and Buehrle might be cooked and certainly doesn't belong in the AL East.

[TheLeviathan]

It is probably more accurate to say I would not have specifically paid Greinke and Sanchez last offseason the contracts it would have taken to get them.

 

Again, you keep dressing up your arguments - you basically have suggested you wouldn't sign those deals. Which means you wouldn't sign any deals for FA pitchers. And you have implied those deals were out of the norm. All of which stands to my point.

 

Not really. My more pertinent argument would be that if you blow your wad on Greinke or Sanchez last offseason it would limit your opportunity to sign a pitcher in 2-3 years when the current minor league core is starting to establish itself in the majors.

 

Yet you've also established that you won't sign any large deals that "hinder" the payroll when those guys arrive so out of one side of your mouth you are arguing "we don't want that money on our ledger in 3 years" but "we'll add someone else in three years where it really will hinder our ability to retain that core" Please rectify these totally unrectifiable positions. Either you don't want contracts on our ledger in 6 years or you do?

 

The point about arby players is that their pay will make up for (and perhaps surpass) the money that is coming off the books via other players, so the payroll, with no additional signings, will look similar to what it has been this year.

 

The average arby price is 3.5M. Let's round it up to 4. How many players will that be? 10...tops? Let's say an outrageously optimistic number like 10 of our prospects are here and we're paying out arby - that's 40M. Plus Mauer and you've barely reached HALF of the payroll we should expect if 50% is true. You want to sit on the other 60M?

 

Do you just have some kind of fundamental misunderstanding about how much players make in arbitration? It's dirt cheap.

 

What you suggest is adding a pitcher later, that when they reach the 4 year point in their deal will coincide with when Sano needs to be locked up. That's when you really WOULD hinder our flexibility!

 

The true risk in this comes from the fact that Greinke could get hurt or start to regress.

 

So could anyone. At year 1 of their deal (like Grienke) or year 6. Do you want to curl into the fetal position when it comes to contracts and just never do them?

 

I have always advocated extending guys on the roster.

 

Even though they carry the same risk of injury and dollar amounts? Explain how that makes any sense.

[old nurse]

So Jackson is a failure as a signing on May friggin 11th? Baker was a high risk that didn't pan out. But Villanueva and Feldman are both doing a nice job. Maholm was flipped for a pretty decent package.

 

They are taking assets that will otherwise not be helping the team (cash) and putting them into helping the team. If that only works 30-40% of the time...how is that any different than a trade or general prospect development?

 

Please get this through your head....no one is saying it's a sure thing. It's just got better odds than DOING NOTHING.

The Twins did more than nothing. Get it through your own head that not everything you do works. I said in the past that the Twins badly guessed on what the free agent market for pitchers would be. When you look at the posting by the people on this board on what they thought players should cost most were way off. I am not going to waste more time going through the archives to find it but 2 mil for Baker, 3/42 for Jackson were numbers that were reasonable to most people. It was Shane Wahl's thread. The second tier pitchers were thought to be going around 5-6 million. There are people on this board that post reasonable articles frequently that came up with these numbers, not just some old hack nurse. My opinion on getting free agents to a losing team is known. I posted they should have took Haren from the Angels for the can of tuna that it would have cost. I posted they should have renewed Baker because that was the only way they were going to keep him knowing that it would have been a waste this year but helpful down the road. Don't forget the nothing that the Twins did was also get two great pitching prospects. Might not do anything this year but next year make TR look very good.

Trading for prospects s is far different than trading for established players. There should be a better return on established players. I do not base any opinion on 10-15% of a season. Jackson will perform better, historically he has. Feldman and Villaneuva will do worse, as they historically have.

[drjim]

This is fun.

 

Again, you keep dressing up your arguments - you basically have suggested you wouldn't sign those deals. Which means you wouldn't sign any deals for FA pitchers. And you have implied those deals were out of the norm. All of which stands to my point.

 

I'm actually responding to the real decisions/players that were in front of the team, not a hypothetical signing of a hypothetical player/contract that doesn't actually exist.

 

Yet you've also established that you won't sign any large deals that "hinder" the payroll when those guys arrive so out of one side of your mouth you are arguing "we don't want that money on our ledger in 3 years" but "we'll add someone else in three years where it really will hinder our ability to retain that core" Please rectify these totally unrectifiable positions. Either you don't want contracts on our ledger in 6 years or you do?

 

So could anyone. At year 1 of their deal (like Grienke) or year 6. Do you want to curl into the fetal position when it comes to contracts and just never do them?

 

Even though they carry the same risk of injury and dollar amounts? Explain how that makes any sense.

 

I would fully expect the Twins to greatly expand their payroll when they are competitive and in a position to lock up elite pieces of their core so I am not especially worried about the payroll point that you made.

 

I prefer to take the risk of a longer contract for a pitcher when that risk can be rewarded with a shot at a world series run. I don't see that happening in the next two years so I don't see the point of taking that risk on right now. I would rather take on the risk when there is a chance for reward.

 

The average arby price is 3.5M. Let's round it up to 4. How many players will that be? 10...tops? Let's say an outrageously optimistic number like 10 of our prospects are here and we're paying out arby - that's 40M. Plus Mauer and you've barely reached HALF of the payroll we should expect if 50% is true. You want to sit on the other 60M?

 

Do you just have some kind of fundamental misunderstanding about how much players make in arbitration? It's dirt cheap.

 

This is a very minor point to our bigger discussion. I wouldn't argue that the Twins will have a low payroll the next couple of seasons, and I would even concede they could fit another $25 million dollar player the next 6 seasons. My bigger point was always that they probably have one shot to add a player like this and I would not have done it this past offseason because of the actual options that were there and the risk reasons that have been discussed. I don't think they could do 4-5 like suggested before.

 

I believe the payroll will be lower next year than this year, but will start to increase a little after that. Guys like Blackburn, Morneau (if not extended), Willingham, etc. are coming off, but there will be bumps from arby and I think the Twins will sign a couple of the $5-10 mil free agent types in the next couple of years as well will make up for that.

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins did more than nothing. Get it through your own head that not everything you do works.

 

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT. That scarecrow is dead, you obliterated it. Move on, no one was saying any such thing. Just that your odds of fielding better talent increases if you add talent!

[TheLeviathan]

I'm actually responding to the real decisions/players that were in front of the team, not a hypothetical signing of a hypothetical player/contract that doesn't actually exist.

 

So you're unwilling to engage about hypothetical FA signings but are more than happy to drone on and on about hypothetical injury scenarios that wreck the future of the club? Jesus dude.

 

Jesus.

 

I prefer to take the risk of a longer contract for a pitcher when that risk can be rewarded with a shot at a world series run. I don't see that happening in the next two years so I don't see the point of taking that risk on right now. I would rather take on the risk when there is a chance for reward.

 

AGAIN...that conflicts with your earlier points that you didn't want to add payroll that would hinder retaining the core players. Let's suppose Sano debuts next year. He will need to be resigned in 2020 or go to FA. If, as you suggest, we sign a Grienke in 3 years....that salary will be on our books and (potentially) hinder that resigning......which exactly what you were railing against earlier!!!! So which is it - you don't want deals that will hinder core resignings or yuo do?

 

One way or another one of your arguments was complete crap that you are now acknowledging. I'd just like to figure out which one it is so you can't shift the goalposts back there again like you are want to do.

 

Your last two paragraphs basically suggest that your arguments from the first 6 pages were a waste of all of our time and you acknowledge their ill-thoughtout nature. But given how back and forth you've been with what little ground you think you have to stand on, I'd like it explained a bit. Read through your own positions in here, they are nothing short of a conflicted, contradictory, ever shifting mess. If those last two posts are your clarification - thanks for dragging us through all this nonsense while you threw crap at the wall. I guess you now know what stuck and we can move on from there?

[drjim]

So you're unwilling to engage about hypothetical FA signings but are more than happy to drone on and on about hypothetical injury scenarios that wreck the future of the club? Jesus dude.

 

Jesus.

 

I always thought the main complaint was that the Twins didn't sign better pitchers this offseason. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread? I think looking at the actual pitchers that were available and what the costs/risks of that signing would be instructive.

 

To speculate on hypothetical injuries that could happen to actual pitchers and how that enters into a risk equation seems a more worthwhile exercise than criticizing the Twins for not signing hypothetical pitchers that don't actually exist.

 

AGAIN...that conflicts with your earlier points that you didn't want to add payroll that would hinder retaining the core players. Let's suppose Sano debuts next year. He will need to be resigned in 2020 or go to FA. If, as you suggest, we sign a Grienke in 3 years....that salary will be on our books and (potentially) hinder that resigning......which exactly what you were railing against earlier!!!! So which is it - you don't want deals that will hinder core resignings or yuo do?

 

One way or another one of your arguments was complete crap that you are now acknowledging. I'd just like to figure out which one it is so you can't shift the goalposts back there again like you are want to do.

 

Your last two paragraphs basically suggest that your arguments from the first 6 pages were a waste of all of our time and you acknowledge their ill-thoughtout nature. But given how back and forth you've been with what little ground you think you have to stand on, I'd like it explained a bit. Read through your own positions in here, they are nothing short of a conflicted, contradictory, ever shifting mess. If those last two posts are your clarification - thanks for dragging us through all this nonsense while you threw crap at the wall. I guess you now know what stuck and we can move on from there?

 

I will concede the point that signing Greinke this past offseason would not impact the ability to lock up the core down the line. That was never my primary point.

 

When you talk about "shifting goalposts" or the like I think it might be good for you to acknowledge that there is not just one reason why the Twins didn't sign Greinke. There were multiple conversations/debates going on in this thread at the same time, I can see how that would get confusing for you.

 

I will also personally concede that throughout this specific thread/debate my thoughts have evolved as people have raised objections and helped me to flesh out my argument and I have done more in-depth research and thinking on the topic. I would think that is purpose of discussion and debate. If you have a simple, black and white, unchanging position on every issue, what would be the point of coming on to a message board?

[TheLeviathan]

I always thought the main complaint was that the Twins didn't sign better pitchers this offseason. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread? I think looking at the actual pitchers that were available and what the costs/risks of that signing would be instructive.

 

That doesn't address my point. You took hypothetical contracts for the Twins to sign last offseason and then hypothesized that they'd be worthless in 6 years. How is that hypothetical ever going to change? It will always be relevant for any offseason. But you insist on picking and choosing the hypotheticals you choose to stress.

 

Personally, I'm not concerned about what Grienke or Sanchez looks like in 5 years. Why? Because none of the core players will be outside of team control/arb. and thus won't have large salary figures to worry about anyway even if they implode in the final years of their deals. Nothing would stop you from still having payroll flexibility because we have ZERO other obligations by that point.

To speculate on hypothetical injuries that could happen to actual pitchers and how that enters into a risk equation

 

Well, it might, except that guys who get extensions are apparently immune to that? That's my best guess since you refuse to explain that distinction. The problem with you hypothetical about injuries is that you seem to think arb. eligible players make billions of dollars.

 

Also, I find this whole train of thought amusing since you refuse to sign players that were known to be available last year out of fear of what MIGHT happen so you can soapbox about how it is perfectly ok not to worry because you think we MIGHT sign people in the future. Is this a cleverly masked Guiness World Record attempt for contradictions in a single thread?

 

That was never my primary point.

 

But it was your point and you repeated it MANY TIMES. It's one thing to acknowledge later "Oh, I didn't realize that....." and then continue the discussion from that point. But that's not what you've done. You've made one argument, had it thoroughly debunked and moved on to another, only to return to the former argument in some slightly re-worded way. It's great you have evolved your thinking, but at no point did you give that indication. You just keep going back to the same wells over and over again no matter how many times they are debunked.

 

You don't like Grienke as an option? Fine, but understand there is not going to be a bevy of options over the hill. Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill and hope when it comes to FA. Fortunately, we have plenty of money to assume that risk. My fear was, and remains, that we have a GM that will never swallow that pill and this last offseason did nothing to reassure me otherwise. Will the next one? I hope so, but I'm not confident in it and meanwhile we are literally watching money waste away without adding to the team's talent.

[drjim]

I suppose it inevitably gets to the point where you replace my actual points with your own twisted rendition of them and top it off with excessive hyperbole.

 

Good debate though, it helped me to clarify my own thinking on the subject.

[Oxtung]

...criticizing the Twins for not signing hypothetical pitchers that don't actually exist.

 

drjim you've said this many times and it just doesn't hold water for the most part. Several people have stated a preference for Greinke or Sanchez. I myself have stated several times that there were 15 average or better pitchers available. I typed up a list earlier this thread with 6-ish pitchers that posted the most innings over the last 3 seasons. The players are really there whether we call them by name or not.

 

The reason I have not referred to any specific pitcher is because FA isn't a buffet. You can't just say, "I'd have signed Sanchez and Saunders this offseason," because anyone player could very well outright refuse to sign with the Twins or have a medical injury we don't know about. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that all 15 above average pitchers would/did. So while we are speaking in generalities, pitchers fitting the general description did exist this past off season.

 

I prefer to take the risk of a longer contract for a pitcher when that risk can be rewarded with a shot at a world series run. I don't see that happening in the next two years so I don't see the point of taking that risk on right now. I would rather take on the risk when there is a chance for reward.

 

If the Twins prospects develop as you hope, capable of making a WS run, then there are going to be some very good players needing to get paid big money down the road. I haven't done the math but I highly suspect that if you wait 3 years to sign your ace pitcher you will not be able to resign all of your in house talent.

 

So the question becomes, is it better to sign that Ace pitcher now or a second tier FA pitcher 3 years from now?