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

[Mike Sixel]

I like a post earlier in the thread........

 

If they had signed a legit FA 2 years ago, and that guy was, you know, good, because our Scouts are so awesome, wouldn't they have been closer this year, and then signing one or two guys would be about filling holes? I mean, if you never acquire talent until you have talent, when do you first acquire talent?

 

I don't want the Pirates/Royals for the next three years, and I don't understand why other fans are willing to sit through that either. But that's the crux, some people are willing for the team to be awful for 4 or 5 years, becase it is better to pocket profits than to spend money to be better, even if better only means I don't have to watch Pelfry and Hernandez pitch.....

[The Wise One]

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.

Dickey would not have been on the market until next year. Cabrera had a long track record of not being good and then is great. Busted for testosterone. 16 million for a .280 singles hitter is excessive. Flagged for incredible myopia and petty bickering

[Brock Beauchamp]

This thread has turned circular. Time to start moving the conversation in a different direction or I'm going to just lock the thread and be done with it.

[cmathewson]

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?

 

If you don't trust them to put together the best roster they can with the available resources, then the Twins should replace the FO. I admit, Ryan has a bad track record with free agents, at least he did until his second coming. I like what he's done with free agents and waiver claims since he returned. I especially like the way he rebuilt the bullpen.

 

I'm not as down on the Correia signing as some here, but I admit I was puzzled by it at first. I don't mind the Pelfrey signing. I guess the jury is still out for me. I personally would give him one more offseason to see if he can put together a contender. But it's not about whether he spends the money he has available. It's about whether he gets enough talent to win. He certainly will have no excuse for not building a contending team with the combination of resources, the emergence of in-house talent, and the expectant class of free agents.

[The Wise One]

Can you move the thread to wherever the occupy Wall Street people went? The liberals complaining about business making profits is getting tiresome.

[Mike Sixel]

Not one person on this thread has suggested the Pohlads should not make a profit. Not one person.

[ThePuck]

Not one person on this thread has suggested the Pohlads should not make a profit. Not one person.

 

exactly...but it's more fun to just use extremes. Besides, considering how much this team is worth now, making a huge profit is a foregone conclusion regardless of payroll

[nicksaviking]

This thread has turned circular. Time to start moving the conversation in a different direction or I'm going to just lock the thread and be done with it.

 

Can you move the thread to wherever the occupy Wall Street people went? The liberals complaining about business making profits is getting tiresome.

 

Wow, this is the direction you thought it should go? This antagonism seems pretty intentional?

[ThePuck]

Wow, this is the direction you thought it should go? This antagonism seems pretty intentional?

 

surprised?

[TheLeviathan]

Can you move the thread to wherever the occupy Wall Street people went? The liberals complaining about business making profits is getting tiresome.

 

Um....I just want a better baseball team, what's so wrong about that?

 

also, this is circular. Anything short of fallacious nonsense just can't defend a premise like "I don't want unused revenues to make my team better consarnit!" with a straight face.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Can you move the thread to wherever the occupy Wall Street people went? The liberals complaining about business making profits is getting tiresome.

 

Really? Really?

 

Come on. I don't even care about this argument and have barely scanned the past 100 posts but even I can recognize that as a one-legged strawman argument.

 

And you may want to think twice before labeling your opposition as "liberals" simply because you disagree with them. Users have earned temporary bans for both of the above offenses.

[snepp]

Here, let me fetch that for you....

 

 

 

[jokin]

Dickey would not have been on the market until next year. Cabrera had a long track record of not being good and then is great. Busted for testosterone. 16 million for a .280 singles hitter is excessive. Flagged for incredible myopia and petty bickering

 

Dickey would not have gone to the Jays if they hadn't had the extended contract worked out in advance, that's what was meant by "de facto FA". $16M was exactly what I was referring to as a losing team willing to take a chance at getting better. Some might argue that the number was even excessive. But of course, that wasn't the point. I did flag your post, well done, sir.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Um....I just want a better baseball team, what's so wrong about that?

 

also, this is circular. Anything short of fallacious nonsense just can't defend a premise like "I don't want unused revenues to make my team better consarnit!" with a straight face.

What do you mean by unused revenues? How do you know what their budget is?

If you seriously think the Twins should not be in rebuilding mode with this pitching staff then I congratulate you on your optimism. Otherwise I vehemently disagree with you on the process of adding talent to the team. If you are merely saying the Twins should have got better free agents for the money they spent, then I don't really disagree with that. But, if you are expecting to retain numerous free agents for a period of time until the next wave of youth comes from the minors, then I'm saying that isn't wise.

 

Also, no matter how much money they would have spent this year in free agency, they weren't going to compete with this lousy pitching staff. Once they traded Span and Revere everyone should have known this is a rebuilding year. That doesn't mean you indiscriminately increase payroll to placate a handful of impatient fans who can't read a minor league boxscore.

[TheLeviathan]

What do you mean by unused revenues? How do you know what their budget is?

 

The Twins have stated in the past that they use 50% of total revenue as a guide for payroll. Since we can also use reputable sources like Forbes (all of this has been said already BTW) we can slot their 50% number as somewhere between 100-130M. We're currently at the 70ish mark. So that other 60M that is normally earmarked for player salaries is indeed going "unused" to help the talent on the field.

 

If you seriously think the Twins should not be in rebuilding mode with this pitching staff then I congratulate you on your optimism.

 

Well, considering some of the key pieces are on a faster track than most thought and some of that young group is already debuting, I don't think we're in a full rebuild. We're trying to build around Mauer. It's not like we're a team of 35 year olds with no upside here. So yeah, part of our future is playing now...why not supplement them?

 

My problem is primarily that if you are 40-50M under your expected payroll, with glaring needs that will not block any young players, and a FA group that fit some of those needs.....and you do nothing.....how am I supposed to believe that trend changes.

 

Book it right now, in 3 years when most of these same people making the arguments you are see that Brett Anderson (healthy and pitching like an ace) is on the FA market and the Twins do nothing, you'll all scoff and say "Well...yeah, we can't sign anyone to a big deal NOW. That would interfere with locking up Sano and Buxton!" And we'll all ride this craptacular train of circular nonsense one more time.

[Thegrin]

It is not the money being spent but the wisdom of how it is being spent. This years FA players were not worth major investments. There were no pitchers that were proven top class starters except Grienke and he has proved unreliable. It would have been irresponsible to invest large sums of cash on Grienke, Sanchez etc.

 

All teams must suffer down years. The Twins pitchers all collapsed at the same time. Thats bad luck. Now we have some terrific young ballplayers rising from our farm system. This year was not the time to be spending a bunch of money on mediocre pitchers.

 

And besides, this years Twins are interesting so far.

[jokin]

It is not the money being spent but the wisdom of how it is being spent. This years FA players were not worth major investments. There were no pitchers that were proven top class starters except Grienke and he has proved unreliable. It would have been irresponsible to invest large sums of cash on Grienke, Sanchez etc.

 

All teams must suffer down years. The Twins pitchers all collapsed at the same time. Thats bad luck. Now we have some terrific young ballplayers rising from our farm system. This year was not the time to be spending a bunch of money on mediocre pitchers.

 

And besides, this years Twins are interesting so far.

 

And think about how much more interesting they'd be if they had gone after pitchers one or two levels below Grienke and Sanchez and not 5 levels, bargain basement, lower.

[mikecgrimes]

Next year I would rather have Alex Meyer and Kyle Gibson then Zach Grienke and Johan Santana before you factor salary in. The only position where an argument could be made that we made a bad dump is center if Hicks doesn't develop, and in that case Span was making very little compared to his performance anyways. $180 million dollar rosters don't tend to be filled with all-stars.

[Guest USAFChief]

Next year I would rather have Alex Meyer and Kyle Gibson then Zach Grienke and Johan Santana before you factor salary in. .

See, that's the thing. You don't have to choose.

 

The Twins could be stretching the budget a bit this year and paying both Greinke and Santana, and wouldn't even need to stretch if they weren't paying Correia and Pelfrey. Santana's current contract is done after 2013. They are not paying Gibson and Meyer major league salaries right now, and will only be paying Gibson a portion of the MLB minimum if he comes up.

 

And since this discussion isn't about Santana, rather about Greinke and/or Sanchez, they could have signed them both to the contracts they got, added Pelfrey on a one year deal, and been somewhere in the neighborhood of their 2011 salary range.

 

Gibson and Meyer, meanwhile, have gone nowhere under either scenario above. They're both still there, just waiting to start earning the major league minimum when they're needed, and not due to start earning really big bucks until sometime around when the Greinke/Sanchez contracts expire. Only now--with Sanchez and Greinke in the rotation--iif one or both don't turn into above average starters, you have two more options who might still be. If they're all performing well, you have the option of keeping them all, or dealing one for help elsewhere.

 

Under your scenario, if Gibson and/or Meyer don't work out, you have what? A rotation of Worley, Diamond, and...?

[jokin]

See, that's the thing. You don't have to choose.

 

The Twins could be stretching the budget a bit this year and paying both Greinke and Santana, and wouldn't even need to stretch if they weren't paying Correia and Pelfrey. Santana's current contract is done after 2013. They are not paying Gibson and Meyer major league salaries right now, and will only be paying Gibson a portion of the MLB minimum if he comes up.

 

And since this discussion isn't about Santana, rather about Greinke and/or Sanchez, they could have signed them both to the contracts they got, added Pelfrey on a one year deal, and been somewhere in the neighborhood of their 2011 salary range.

 

Gibson and Meyer, meanwhile, have gone nowhere under either scenario above. They're both still there, just waiting to start earning the major league minimum when they're needed, and not due to start earning really big bucks until sometime around when the Greinke/Sanchez contracts expire. Only now--with Sanchez and Greinke in the rotation--iif one or both don't turn into above average starters, you have two more options who might still be. If they're all performing well, you have the option of keeping them all, or dealing one for help elsewhere.

 

Under your scenario, if Gibson and/or Meyer don't work out, you have what? A rotation of Worley, Diamond, and...?

 

You're playing chess on a checkers thread, Chief.

[cmathewson]

If they're all performing well, you have the option of keeping them all, or dealing one for help elsewhere.

 

Well, now you're arguing from the best case scenario for those two. The worst case is both Sanchez and Greinke blowing out their elbows or shoulders, and being practically untradeable, as Santana has been for the last three years. I don't think the worst case is all that likely, but it is pretty likely that one of them will have a major injury over the life of their respective contracts.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, now you're arguing from the best case scenario for those two. The worst case is both Sanchez and Greinke blowing out their elbows or shoulders, and being practically untradeabl.

 

As opposed to what Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, or Josh Hamilton will look like at the end of their careers? Let's face it, if you're going to dabble in FA - it's not going to be pretty. There are no coupons. There are no buy-one, get-one-free aces or MVPs out there. A lot of people trying to have their cake and eat it too in here.

 

("Well of course I don't want them to do nothing! I just don't want them to do the only thing that happens in reality and not in Imaginary FA Contract Land")

[cmathewson]

As opposed to what Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, or Josh Hamilton will look like at the end of their careers? Let's face it, if you're going to dabble in FA - it's not going to be pretty. There are no coupons. There are no buy-one, get-one-free aces or MVPs out there. A lot of people trying to have their cake and eat it too in here.

 

("Well of course I don't want them to do nothing! I just don't want them to do the only thing that happens in reality and not in Imaginary FA Contract Land")

 

Sure. It's the nature of the thing, even if you sign your own players long term. I'm pretty sure Mauer can't give us the value commensurate with his contract, but I'm still happy with it. I was just responding to the claim that you can trade guys locked up to huge contracts. Maybe near the end of them. But only if the player remains reasonably healthy.

 

The scenario that intrigues me is having Greinke and Sanchez while Gibson, Meyer, May, Berrios and perhaps a Stewart-type draft pick come along. You probably can't trade the veterans, so you start trading your youngsters. Not necessarily a bad thing, in itself. But it seems like you can actually do better if you have a lot of young top starters vs. guys who are wearing down.

[TheLeviathan]

The scenario that intrigues me is having Greinke and Sanchez while Gibson, Meyer, May, Berrios and perhaps a Stewart-type draft pick come along. You probably can't trade the veterans, so you start trading your youngsters. Not necessarily a bad thing, in itself. But it seems like you can actually do better if you have a lot of young top starters vs. guys who are wearing down.

 

I guess that depends on where you slot their time tables. I don't think I'd have wanted both Grienke and Sanchez, but one of them would've made me feel a lot better about the present and future. Not just in terms of talent, but willingness to acquire. I think that's the part that worries me more than the current efforts, it's the hopelessness about future efforts.

[LaBombo]

The scenario that intrigues me is having Greinke and Sanchez while Gibson, Meyer, May, Berrios and perhaps a Stewart-type draft pick come along. You probably can't trade the veterans, so you start trading your youngsters. Not necessarily a bad thing, in itself. But it seems like you can actually do better if you have a lot of young top starters vs. guys who are wearing down.

They're pitching prospects.

 

Meyer has 37 innings above A ball. May is repeating AA after being bad there last year. Berrios is a 19 year old who was primarily a reliever in rookie ball last year. Gibson has already had TJ surgery.

 

And you're worried that the Twins will find themselves with a glut of good starters if they sign two good free agent pitchers? That's very...well, I guess the nice word is optimistic.

 

My hope is that the Twins front office isn't counting their pitching prospects before they hatch, especially if it means avoiding free agent pitchers in anticipation of every one of their top four pitching prospects turning into above-average MLB starters.

[cmathewson]

They're pitching prospects.

 

Meyer has 37 innings above A ball. May is repeating AA after being bad there last year. Berrios is a 19 year old who was primarily a reliever in rookie ball last year. Gibson has already had TJ surgery.

 

And you're worried that the Twins will find themselves with a glut of good starters if they sign two good free agent pitchers? That's very...well, I guess the nice word is optimistic.

 

My hope is that the Twins front office isn't counting their pitching prospects before they hatch, especially if it means avoiding free agent pitchers in anticipation of every one of their top four pitching prospects turning into above-average MLB starters.

 

I didn't say I was worried. I said the scenario intrigues me. My opinion is they should sign a top-flight pitcher to a long-term contract after this year. I just don't think Greinke or Sanchez are worth what they got. Sanchez is closer. But Greinke is not as good as some think. I understand you have to overspend to compete with the Dodgers or Angels. But not that much, not for Greinke.

[jokin]

Sure. It's the nature of the thing, even if you sign your own players long term. I'm pretty sure Mauer can't give us the value commensurate with his contract, but I'm still happy with it. I was just responding to the claim that you can trade guys locked up to huge contracts. Maybe near the end of them. But only if the player remains reasonably healthy.

 

The scenario that intrigues me is having Greinke and Sanchez while Gibson, Meyer, May, Berrios and perhaps a Stewart-type draft pick come along. You probably can't trade the veterans, so you start trading your youngsters. Not necessarily a bad thing, in itself. But it seems like you can actually do better if you have a lot of young top starters vs. guys who are wearing down.

 

A tale of 2 teams- it can be done- even with one of the worst ball-and-chain contracts ever to Barry Zito

 

Twins:

 

2006 1st place $65.0 M payroll

2007 3rd place $72.2 M payroll Goodbye Santana, Hunter, Castillo, Silva

2008 2nd place $61.4 M payroll Hello Livan

2009 1st place $67.0 M payroll Goodbye Livan

2010 1st place $98.2 M payroll Hello Pavano, Hardy, Hudson

2011 5th place $113 M payroll First year of Mauer @ $23M Re-sign Pavano 16.5M??

2012 5th place $100 M payroll Good bye Cuddy, Delmon, Kub, Thome, Slowey Hello Nishi and Marquis

 

 

San Francisco Giants

 

2006 1st place $90.0M payroll

2007 5th place $89.7M payroll Hello Zito- longterm franchise-wrecking "disaster" contract of $125M

2008 4th place $75.9M payroll Bye-bye BB, Ramirez Hello Rowand

2009 3rd place $84.6M payroll Hello Randy Johnson, Renteria

2010 1st place $97.0M payroll Re-upped Lincecum @$23M WORLD SERIES

2011 2nd place $118M payroll Re-upped Huff @$20M Xtnd Wilson @$15M

2012 !st place $132M payroll Hello Cabrera Xtnd Cain @$136M/Lincecum $40.5M WORLD SERIES

[jokin]

They're pitching prospects.

 

Meyer has 37 innings above A ball. May is repeating AA after being bad there last year. Berrios is a 19 year old who was primarily a reliever in rookie ball last year. Gibson has already had TJ surgery.

 

And you're worried that the Twins will find themselves with a glut of good starters if they sign two good free agent pitchers? That's very...well, I guess the nice word is optimistic.

 

My hope is that the Twins front office isn't counting their pitching prospects before they hatch, especially if it means avoiding free agent pitchers in anticipation of every one of their top four pitching prospects turning into above-average MLB starters.

 

I'd say you're doing quite well if you can get a 50% return on your pitching prospects. Sadly, the Twins are probably expecting at least a 75% return.

[drjim]

See, that's the thing. You don't have to choose.

 

The Twins could be stretching the budget a bit this year and paying both Greinke and Santana, and wouldn't even need to stretch if they weren't paying Correia and Pelfrey. Santana's current contract is done after 2013. They are not paying Gibson and Meyer major league salaries right now, and will only be paying Gibson a portion of the MLB minimum if he comes up.

 

And since this discussion isn't about Santana, rather about Greinke and/or Sanchez, they could have signed them both to the contracts they got, added Pelfrey on a one year deal, and been somewhere in the neighborhood of their 2011 salary range.

 

Gibson and Meyer, meanwhile, have gone nowhere under either scenario above. They're both still there, just waiting to start earning the major league minimum when they're needed, and not due to start earning really big bucks until sometime around when the Greinke/Sanchez contracts expire. Only now--with Sanchez and Greinke in the rotation--iif one or both don't turn into above average starters, you have two more options who might still be. If they're all performing well, you have the option of keeping them all, or dealing one for help elsewhere.

 

Under your scenario, if Gibson and/or Meyer don't work out, you have what? A rotation of Worley, Diamond, and...?

 

I think this type of statement is a severely flawed premise at best and irresponsible at worst. There is nothing to suggest that contracts being equal Sanchez would choose the Twins over the Tigers or that Greinke would choose the Twins over the Dodgers, or that the Dodgers would not be willing to up their offer if they had to. They are already dicey contracts as is and the Twins would have to make that much riskier in order to actually bring them in.

[LaBombo]

I'd say you're doing quite well if you can get a 50% return on your pitching prospects. Sadly, the Twins are probably expecting at least a 75% return.

If 75% meant a front-half starter, a 4th starter, and a worthwhile reliever, well, that might still be optimistic, but I could live with that expectation. But yes, I'm afraid they're expecting even more than that.