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

[old nurse]

The answer would be: "FOUR"

Boston, Cleveland, Toronto and the Cubs.

 

Toronto signed only two players, one of them clearly misses his PEDS.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Please explain how this very dressed up response is substantively different from "nothing" when it comes to spending money/adding talent.

If you want to call it nothing that's cool. I don't think building through free agency is wise. We aren't ever going to be positioned to outbid teams. So to make Minnesota an attractive location to free agents they'll have to overpay. Thus. You inherently aren't getting value.

If the team was you know, good, then that's a different story. Then you supplement your roster with free agents.

[Kwak]

"Overpay"? My, what a convienent word--strong connotations, ill-defined, and to fans--irrelevant! Most of baseball is convinced that the Twins "overpaid" for Mauer--but none on this blog. The discussion points have gone from: "woe is us, it's pointless (wasteful) to spend on free-agent talent", then to "it's too risky to spend because somebody might fail", moving to "it's still pointless because other franchises can easily out-spend the Twins", and now to "overpay". So why are people so concerned about "payroll efficiency"? It's not our money, nor is our fan enjoyment enhanced becaused the Twins spent less than X to win (or lose). People weren't all that concerned about paying triple per seat to watch the Twins in Target Field (as well as the increased taxes) compared to watching in the Metrodome--so why should we be concerned if payroll efficiency is maximized? It seems to me that fans would want to see the most entertaining team possible rather than cheap, lovable losers.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

"Overpay"? My, what a convienent word--strong connotations, ill-defined, and to fans--irrelevant! Most of baseball is convinced that the Twins "overpaid" for Mauer--but none on this blog. The discussion points have gone from: "woe is us, it's pointless (wasteful) to spend on free-agent talent", then to "it's too risky to spend because somebody might fail", moving to "it's still pointless because other franchises can easily out-spend the Twins", and now to "overpay". So why are people so concerned about "payroll efficiency"? It's not our money, nor is our fan enjoyment enhanced becaused the Twins spent less than X to win (or lose). People weren't all that concerned about paying triple per seat to watch the Twins in Target Field (as well as the increased taxes) compared to watching in the Metrodome--so why should we be concerned if payroll efficiency is maximized? It seems to me that fans would want to see the most entertaining team possible rather than cheap, lovable losers.

I'll tell you why: The maximum payroll the Twins can spend is still dwarfed by the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels. Target field gives the Twins more money, but not nearly enough to match payrolls with them. So, if you want to win a championship, they can't afford to go over valuation on several players. You still need to spend wisely. You have to find a way to compete knowing your competition will be able to outbid you for elite talent. You do that through developing cheaper cost controlled talent on the minors, not by paying $5 when something is worth $3.

 

Then when the team is better you can go after a guy or two to put you over the top.

[jokin]

Toronto signed only two players, one of them clearly misses his PEDS.

 

You conveniently left out the part about their overall offseason activity.

 

You do realize through their acquisitions, the Blue Jays payroll jumped by over 50% from $83.7M in 2012 to $127.8M in 2013, right? Baseball Prospectus | Compensation | Baseball Prospectus Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Twins payroll dropped by about 20%.

[jokin]

I'll tell you why: The maximum payroll the Twins can spend is still dwarfed by the likes of the Yankees' date=' Red Sox, and Angels. Target field gives the Twins more money, but not nearly enough to match payrolls with them.$3.

top.[/quote']

 

Please show where anyone has actually proposed that the Twins should match payroll numbers with the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Dodgers? Being more fiscally, yet fiduciarily, agressive is all that realistic fans are asking for. (Well, that, and having the Twins FO and Ownership actually keep their word on how they, themselves defined future budget parameters...).

[TheLeviathan]

If you want to call it nothing that's cool. I don't think building through free agency is wise. We aren't ever going to be positioned to outbid teams. So to make Minnesota an attractive location to free agents they'll have to overpay. Thus. You inherently aren't getting value.

If the team was you know' date=' good, then that's a different story. Then you supplement your roster with free agents.[/quote']

 

Yowza. I'm going to quick hit this one:

 

1. In a context of payroll, you are indeed advocating doing "nothing" Don't divorce comments on a topic from the topic and then criticize them.

2. No one is saying to "build" through FA. Only supplement the future group.

3. Did I miss something, did Minnesota suddenly become Mordor?

4. Who in god's name said anyone is getting value with large deals in FA? NO ONE gets long, high price deals that are a "value"

5. Why do you have to wait to have a solid group to supplement your talent base? What is the magical level of talent at which you try to make yourself better? I assume anytime you aren't that good you just settle for wallowing in crappiness?

[jokin]

If you want to call it nothing that's cool. I don't think building through free agency is wise. We aren't ever going to be positioned to outbid teams. So to make Minnesota an attractive location to free agents they'll have to overpay. Thus. You inherently aren't getting value.

If the team was you know' date=' good, then that's a different story[/b']. Then you supplement your roster with free agents.

 

The team was, you know, good, in 2010. 3rd best AL record. The very solid core was all returning in 2011. Oh yeah, they were also playing in the state of the art, award-winning, taxpayer-financed, brand new Target Field. A playground that Jim Pohlad was on record assuring the fans would supply the added revenues from which would insure that the team would be unhampered from making the necessary moves to keep the team, you know, good. A few more offseason moves (or rententions) after '11 and again after '12 and you can see this '13 team would be knocking on the door of the AL Central lead yet again.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

This team is not good. There is nothing to supplement. This is not 2010. I think the best approach is to wait until your core of young players develops and then become a player in free agency. It makes no sense to spend to an arbitrary number because you can, that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field. You may get more short term success but I'd rather they try to win a title, not merely keep some sort of bull**** promise you guys think they made to spend x amount if dollars. It's not hard to understand.

[TheLeviathan]

This team is not good. There is nothing to supplement. This is not 2010. I think the best approach is to wait until your core of young players develops and then become a player in free agency. It makes no sense to spend to an arbitrary number because you can' date=' that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field. You may get more short term success but I'd rather they try to win a title, not merely keep some sort of bull**** promise you guys think they made to spend x amount if dollars. It's not hard to understand.[/quote']

 

Sometimes you don't know how good you're going to be until you actually try. It never hurts to have a more talented team with more good players. I am utterly baffled at the resistance to that.

[jokin]

It makes no sense to spend to an arbitrary number because you can' date=' that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field[/b']. You may get more short term success but I'd rather they try to win a title, not merely keep some sort of bull**** promise you guys think they made to spend x amount if dollars. It's not hard to understand.

 

I'm not following your logic here. To repeat and paraphrase what you stated,

 

"it makes no sense to spend within your proscribed payroll number to get better players, to build around your existing strong core group----because---ready for it---that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field."

 

To me anyway, that's very hard to understand.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

I'm not following your logic here. To repeat and paraphrase what you stated,

 

"it makes no sense to spend within your proscribed payroll number to get better players, to build around your existing strong core group----because---ready for it---that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field."

 

 

To me anyway, that's very hard to understand.

Long term. This is not the best way to build a team. And again, there is no core group to build around.

[TheLeviathan]

Long term. This is not the best way to build a team. And again' date=' there is no core group to build around.[/quote']

 

No one is relying on it to build the team. That scarecrow is dead, you can leave it dead.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

No one is relying on it to build the team. That scarecrow is dead, you can leave it dead.

Then who are the core players you are building around?

 

No, never mind. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to point out how bad the Twins are. You can believe they have a core to build around, that's fine. No point on going any farther with this discussion.

[TheLeviathan]

No' date=' never mind. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to point out how bad the Twins are. You can believe they have a core to build around, that's fine. No point on going any farther with this discussion.[/quote']

 

So your position is you just give up, wave the white flag, and never add any talent when you aren't sure to win a world series? I guess I like it when my baseball team isn't intentionally supressing it's own talent levels.

[jokin]

Then who are the core players you are building around?

 

No' date=' never mind. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to point out how bad the Twins are. [b']You can believe they have a core to build around, that's fine.[/b] No point on going any farther with this discussion.

 

It isn't a question of "belief". This isn't the Houston Astros or Miami Marlins we're talking about here. It was demonstrable after 2011- they still were largely composed of the team you yourself admitted was "good" in 2010, or did you forget that? And they certainly have a core of strong players in 2013, statistically demonstrable, on this year's team, whether you choose to believe it, or not.

[cmathewson]

I'm not following your logic here. To repeat and paraphrase what you stated,

 

"it makes no sense to spend within your proscribed payroll number to get better players, to build around your existing strong core group----because---ready for it---that's not going to give you the best team you can put on the field."

 

To me anyway, that's very hard to understand.

 

If there are no clear upgrades available on the FA market, all things considered, it makes no sense to sign what is available. In those cases, it is almost always better to go with your internal options. Internal options that are about as good as any of the free agents will typically be better in future years because they are younger. If you sign crappy free agents just to spend your money, you can make your team worse.

[jokin]

If there are no clear upgrades available on the FA market, all things considered, it makes no sense to sign what is available. In those cases, it is almost always better to go with your internal options. Internal options that are about as good as any of the free agents will typically be better in future years because they are younger. If you sign crappy free agents just to spend your money, you can make your team worse.

 

All of that is true, and I'm sure you would agree that the Twins have signed pretty good position players and relief pitcher FAs, right? I am certainly not, and never have been in, the camp that would say: "sign crappy FAs just to spend your money."---which is actually, with respect to SPs, what the Twins did this year and last! To me, the signings should always have purposeful intent, with Plan A and B options. And I can give you plenty of "clear upgrades" in the SP market that the Twins could have acquired on one or two year deals, both this year and last.

[old nurse]

You conveniently left out the part about their overall offseason activity.

 

You do realize through their acquisitions, the Blue Jays payroll jumped by over 50% from $83.7M in 2012 to $127.8M in 2013, right? Baseball Prospectus | Compensation | Baseball Prospectus Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Twins payroll dropped by about 20%.

The original post was about signing free agents not trading for talent. Not that I really cared about your inaccuracies, I just wanted to get in a shot about the guy and his PEDS.

[Kwak]

To not add talent when it is available is myopic. A "core of players"? There was one in place. To wait "until the core is ready" is foolish. The needed pieces are not necessarily available at that time. A top free agent can be used as one of cornerstones.

[old nurse]

All of that is true, and I'm sure you would agree that the Twins have signed pretty good position players and relief pitcher FAs, right? I am certainly not, and never have been in, the camp that would say: "sign crappy FAs just to spend your money."---which is actually, with respect to SPs, what the Twins did this year and last! To me, the signings should always have purposeful intent, with Plan A and B options. And I can give you plenty of "clear upgrades" in the SP market that the Twins could have acquired on one or two year deals, both this year and last.

The upgrades by numbers would still leave them as 4-5 starters. You would have at best a minimal improvement over what was signed or traded for this past off season. Marquis was a head scratcher. Although at 3 million he was probably the cheapest pitcher signed other than Colon. The sad thing is they could have traded Marty Popham and Brad Holt to the Angels for Haren and 3 million.

[jokin]

The original post was about signing free agents not trading for talent. Not that I really cared about your inaccuracies, I just wanted to get in a shot about the guy and his PEDS.

 

What on earth inaccuracies are you talking about? It appears that you are intentionally missing the point. The challenge was put out that no team with a record as woeful as the Twins would go out and spend money in an attempt to become immediately competitive- and that challenge was most affirmatively answered- Oh yes they would!

 

The Blue Jays committed up to $28M to two new players and pulled off two blockbuster trades. Increasing payroll from such a large base amount by over 50% in one season simply doesn't happen too often. On the first blockbuster deal, they traded for, and only got a de facto free agent, RA Dickey, because they were willing to extend him 3 more years for a total commitment to him of up to $41M. On the other trade with the Marlins, the amount of guaranteed money the Jays absorbed was $165M, a sum so monumentally unprecedented, the deal had to be approved by Commissioner Selig.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'll tell you why: The maximum payroll the Twins can spend is still dwarfed by the likes of the Yankees' date=' Red Sox, and Angels. Target field gives the Twins more money, but not nearly enough to match payrolls with them. So, if you want to win a championship, they can't afford to go over valuation on several players. You still need to spend wisely. You have to find a way to compete knowing your competition will be able to outbid you for elite talent. You do that through developing cheaper cost controlled talent on the minors, not by[b'] paying $5 when something is worth $3.[/b]

 

Then when the team is better you can go after a guy or two to put you over the top.

When they go after a guy or two to put themselves over the top, will they then be paying $3 for something worth $5? If so, why?

 

If not, why is it ok then, but not now?

[Guest USAFChief]

OK, well I personally don't think that's a good strategy. I'm for spending whatever it takes to win, but I don't think spending indiscriminately or to some arbitrary budget number is the best strategy. If you sign expensive guys, you expect to give them every opportunity to earn their money. What if they don't? If he doesn't perform, your only option is to DFA him. That is a bitter pill for most people to swallow. It's the kind of thing that gets GMs fired. so hey keep him as long as they can hoping he'll turn it around. Meanwhile, the team finds itself behind every time he starts.

 

To give you just one of the dozens of examples I can think of off the top of my head, on our own team, we have suffered through Nick Blakcburn largely because we locked him up to a large contract. If Smith hadn't signed him to that deal, he would have likely been in the minors two years earlier. Instead, he was giving up runs and keeping other guys from getting opportunities who might have done better (internally or externally sourced).

 

That's essentially what you do when you sign a bad free agent. So the risk aversion is real. But it's not all about spending the owners' money. It's about the risk of losing because you signed the wrong guy. Ryan said several times in the offseason he wasn't fond of many of the free agents. His prescience has panned out with 20% of the season done.

 

Your point: Smith gave Blackburn a terrible deal, so Smith/Ryan/Gardenhire were forced to give him too many chances. Since they've proven they can't be trusted to put the most talented team on the field--they make decisions based on money rather than performance--I don't trust Ryan to sign the right free agents now. Because, if he signs the wrong ones, I don't trust him to keep the guy off the 25 man roster and/or I don't trust Gardenhire not to keep running him out there.

 

Do I have that right? And are you therefore advocating firing either Ryan and/or Gardenhire, depending on who you trust least?

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

When they go after a guy or two to put themselves over the top, will they then be paying $3 for something worth $5? If so, why?

 

If not, why is it ok then, but not now?

To win a championship?

I'm not saving "don't ever sign free agents". The Twins have a lot of potential MLB talent at several positions in the lower minors. Buxton is a "superstar in the making" to quote a BP analyst a few days ago. Sano can be a legit middle of the order bat. They also have more pitchers to get excited about than we've seen in a long time. If thinks shake out right you could have a real nice, cost controlled core of players in a few years. So why would you want to spend money now in free agency when you could be blocking these guys? And why would you not want as much flexibility as you could possibly have when this happens?

[old nurse]

What on earth inaccuracies are you talking about? It appears that you are intentionally missing the point. The challenge was put out that no team with a record as woeful as the Twins would go out and spend money in an attempt to become immediately competitive- and that challenge was most affirmatively answered- Oh yes they would!

 

The Blue Jays committed up to $28M to two new players and pulled off two blockbuster trades. Increasing payroll from such a large base amount by over 50% in one season simply doesn't happen too often. On the first blockbuster deal, they traded for, and only got a de facto free agent, RA Dickey, because they were willing to extend him 3 more years for a total commitment to him of up to $41M. On the other trade with the Marlins, the amount of guaranteed money the Jays absorbed was $165M, a sum so monumentally unprecedented, the deal had to be approved by Commissioner Selig.

Again, the original post was about spending in free agency. If spending 28 million dollars on an outfielder that OPS .700 when off drugs and a backup infielder a big splash in the free agency market go ahead. Did I say enough times that the person. I guess a bellyflop does move a lot of water.

[Kwak]

Ah, here we go again--"we might be blocking a superstar"? What claptrap! Teams make space for stars to play! Cabrera at 3B is an excellent example of that. The Twins even played Harmon at 3B for a year, they eventually made him into a 1B despite having a competent 1B, just so he would have a place to play. Back to staarting pitching--there a 5 of them--no "future star" would be blocked if a top FA were signed. Even in today's team--no one was blocked! Back in March, Hicks was thought to be "that star"--space was made for him. When Arcia was promoted--space was made for him to play every day--even after his gaffe against Baltimore. I swear this thread is like that "singing show" with all of the "smoke" blown on stage obscurring the performers.

[jokin]

Again, the original post was about spending in free agency. If spending 28 million dollars on an outfielder that OPS .700 when off drugs and a backup infielder a big splash in the free agency market go ahead. Did I say enough times that the person. I guess a bellyflop does move a lot of water.

 

Player in question was leading the league in batting in 2012 before suspension, bats leadoff for Jays, the other also starts and given long-term commitment. And you ignored RA Dickey, who was a de facto Free Agent who they extended 3 years for $41M. Flagged for unnecessary rudeness.

[old nurse]

Ah, here we go again--"we might be blocking a superstar"? What claptrap! Teams make space for stars to play! Cabrera at 3B is an excellent example of that. The Twins even played Harmon at 3B for a year, they eventually made him into a 1B despite having a competent 1B, just so he would have a place to play. Back to staarting pitching--there a 5 of them--no "future star" would be blocked if a top FA were signed. Even in today's team--no one was blocked! Back in March, Hicks was thought to be "that star"--space was made for him. When Arcia was promoted--space was made for him to play every day--even after his gaffe against Baltimore. I swear this thread is like that "singing show" with all of the "smoke" blown on stage obscurring the performers.

Was there a top free agent willing to sign here? There were plenty of mediocre pitchers available. 4-5 starter types abound but the rant is about the better free agents. The smoke blowing comes from the people complaining what was not done with no idea what happened behind the scene.

[jokin]

Was there a top free agent willing to sign here? There were plenty of mediocre pitchers available. 4-5 starter types abound but the rant is about the better free agents. The smoke blowing comes from the people complaining what was not done with no idea what happened behind the scene.

 

The puffs of smoke actually were coming from 1 Twins Way--- Since they did virtually nothing else in January and February but defend their offseason December signings. Oh wait, they did make one more move, they signed the proven "fully healthy and ready to start" Perez in February behind the scenes.