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

[cmathewson]

What would make Morneau think they can win next year? What asset has come up this year that would make him think that? I'm genuinely curious about that.

 

Hicks, Arcia, Meyer, May, Sano, Rosario, Buxton, Berrios, Polanco, ...

 

I doubt he'd leave if they can't win NEXT YEAR. But if he felt he had a good chance to win over the span of a three-year contract, say, I think he would stay.

 

Have you seen the list of FA pitchers next year, when the entire league has $25MM more to spend, you think players will have better value?

 

Jon Lester, James Shields, Ervin Santana, Matt Garza, Roy Halladay, Jason Hammel, Tim Hudson, Tim Lincecum, and just about all the back-of-the-rotation pitchers who were available after the 2012 season.

[Oxtung]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/Payroll_Annual_Correlation.gif

 

I don't see something that looks like it has a high correlation here. It is the graph from your article.

 

High correlation? No, not like the late 90's. A correlation none the less? Yes. If you spend more money you have a higher likelihood of winning.

[cmathewson]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/Payroll_Annual_Correlation.gif

 

I don't see something that looks like it has a high correlation here. It is the graph from your article.

 

I see a bunny.

[cmathewson]

Not according to Forbes, which pegs Twins revenue at $214M for 2012. MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Full List - Forbes

 

Fair enough, so their 99.25 is 46.4 percent of revenue.

[Guest USAFChief]

I see a bunny.

Ell Oh Ell.

[ThePuck]

Fair enough, so their 99.25 is 46.4 percent of revenue.

 

where does it say our 2013 payroll is $99.25M? Cots has our 2013 payroll at 76M

 

http://data.newsday.com/long-island/data/baseball/mlb-salaries-2013/?desc=no&order=team

 

'Salary data was collected using information from the Associated Press, Baseball Reference and Cot's Baseball Contracts. The players included in this database come from each team's 25-man roster plus major-leaguers on the disabled list as of March 29, 2013'

[Brock Beauchamp]

where does it say our 2013 payroll is $99.25M?

 

A bathroom stall somewhere in Chanhassen.

[ThePuck]

A bathroom stall somewhere in Chanhassen.

 

214M...76M...it's like around 35%? :-)

[Guest USAFChief]

High correlation? No, not like the late 90's. A correlation none the less? Yes. If you spend more money you have a higher likelihood of winning.

There was also a little thing called collusion in the 80's that likely had an effect on correlation, and it's probably revenue-sharing has dampened the effect in the last decade. I certainly won't claim there's not other factors in play, nor that there aren't plenty of counter-examples. There are, however, plenty of studies that show payroll is likely a factor in MLB. Here are a couple I found in a short time, I'm sure there are others: Payroll and Wins How Much Does Payroll Matter? | Community ? FanGraphs Baseball Does money cure all? Certainly not, and there are legitimate arguments (made here by pig, drjim and others) that it might not be ideal to spend a lot when you don't expect to win in the near future. I happen to disagree with that theory (when better to spend on players that will be around a while than when you clearly have the need for those players and the money, and the players you need happen to be available?) but it's only my opinion.

[Kwak]

High payrolls generally come from the major markets. In order to convince the masses to watch their team stars have to be provided. The Twins live in a fairy-tale market where a losing team comprised of mostly no-names, is not only tolerated by the media but also by the fans! In fact there is a legion of apologists extolling the virtue of said strategy. The major cities that I have lived in routinely scourage an underperforming team/management.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

High correlation? No, not like the late 90's. A correlation none the less? Yes. If you spend more money you have a higher likelihood of winning.

Not really.

"Has this worked? Go back up to the graph and take a look. For the past decade, the average correlation between wins and salary has settled into a "natural" space between 0.3 and 0.5. There are still big payrolls, to be sure, and those teams are more likely to win games. But we haven't seen the extreme correlations between payroll and wins that we witnessed in the past."

[cmathewson]

where does it say our 2013 payroll is $99.25M? Cots has our 2013 payroll at 76M

 

2013 MLB baseball salaries

 

'Salary data was collected using information from the Associated Press, Baseball Reference and Cot's Baseball Contracts. The players included in this database come from each team's 25-man roster plus major-leaguers on the disabled list as of March 29, 2013'

 

The chief cited the 2012 revenue. The $99.5 was 2012 salary budget. I don't doubt that the 2013 payroll is around $76 million. Revenue for 2013 is TBD.

[drjim]

High payrolls generally come from the major markets. In order to convince the masses to watch their team stars have to be provided. The Twins live in a fairy-tale market where a losing team comprised of mostly no-names, is not only tolerated by the media but also by the fans! In fact there is a legion of apologists extolling the virtue of said strategy. The major cities that I have lived in routinely scourage an underperforming team/management.

 

You feel there has been a lack of media and/or fan outrage the past two seasons? I would respectfully disagree. Maybe apathy.

[old nurse]

High correlation? No, not like the late 90's. A correlation none the less? Yes. If you spend more money you have a higher likelihood of winning.

Yes you will have a higher likelihood of winning. At what point of spending? Money on very good players should see a return. To turn the 2011-2012 Twins into winners that would be winning 16 more games. To add 10 WAR and hope for 6 of improvement within would be a 50 million payroll increase. If it were the 7-10 million per WAR to add talent that was mentioned here, that would bring the payroll to over 150 million for an at best mediocre team.

[Twins Daily Admin]

One of my first widely read stories on TwinsGeek.com (back in 2002) was a study of how payroll correlated with wins. It has charts that don't look like bunnies and everything. Here is an archived copy of it.

 

Success and Payroll

 

I'll ruin the surprise a little. There is a correlation which isn't huge but is significant.

[ThePuck]

The chief cited the 2012 revenue. The $99.5 was 2012 salary budget. I don't doubt that the 2013 payroll is around $76 million. Revenue for 2013 is TBD.

 

 

Revenue from one year goes to the next years team salary. 2012 revenue doesn't pay for 2012, but 2013....unless you think they are trying to project, and if that's the case, are they projecting 152M revenue this year?

 

Any way you look at it, we will be way below 50% this year, whether it's 2012 revenue or 2013 revenue that pays for this year's payroll...and that was the point, no? Unless you see us having a drop off of over 50M in revenue, which would be pretty extreme, no?

[ThePuck]

anyway, I got involved with this ridiculous conversation after I told mike wants wins it was an exercise in futility. Silly me.

[TheLeviathan]

Yes you will have a higher likelihood of winning. At what point of spending? Money on very good players should see a return. To turn the 2011-2012 Twins into winners that would be winning 16 more games. To add 10 WAR and hope for 6 of improvement within would be a 50 million payroll increase. If it were the 7-10 million per WAR to add talent that was mentioned here, that would bring the payroll to over 150 million for an at best mediocre team.

 

I don't understand this idea that FA dollars somehow translate into WAR. This is just a bizarre way of constructing an argument and I'd suggest it's completely facetious. Or, at least, I hope it is.

 

The problem with payroll is that if you aren't paying for talent, it's unlikely you have a lot of talent. Now you might have a young, very good roster that is cheap (as we hope to soon) but most times money at least reflects your talent. It's hard to add or maintain it without money so it just makes sense.

 

I, for one, am not suggesting they HAD to sign Grienke or anyone else. But the reality is that this team has enough cash to hand out two absurd contracts and as many as 4-5 semi-absurd (Sanchez-like) contracts and do little to no harm to their long-term financial situation. And that's using 50% revenue as a measuring stick.

 

What I think cannot be argued is that our head honcho has yet to show a willingness to consistently dabble in the 3/40 range much less the 5/75. We're going to need to see that, possibly as soon as next year, to jumpstart this thing even quicker. Waiting on prospects only is a good way to keep waiting.

[drjim]

Revenue from one year goes to the next years team salary. 2012 revenue doesn't pay for 2012, but 2013....unless you think they are trying to project, and if that's the case, are they projecting 152M revenue this year?

 

Any way you look at it, we will be way below 50% this year, whether it's 2012 revenue or 2013 revenue that pays for this year's payroll...and that was the point, no? Unless you see us having a drop off of over 50M in revenue, which would be pretty extreme, no?

 

I'm pretty sure they set payroll based upon projected revenues. I also would say with good confidence that they realize they are below 50-52% of total revenues with the current payroll. They have said as much.

[cmathewson]

I hope they return to spending 50% or more of revenue. I'll be disappointed if they don't. But I don't get too worked about it if they don't, in a year when what they could spend money on was not going to improve them much and might make it harder to win in future years.

[drjim]

I don't understand this idea that FA dollars somehow translate into WAR. This is just a bizarre way of constructing an argument and I'd suggest it's completely facetious. Or, at least, I hope it is.

 

The problem with payroll is that if you aren't paying for talent, it's unlikely you have a lot of talent. Now you might have a young, very good roster that is cheap (as we hope to soon) but most times money at least reflects your talent. It's hard to add or maintain it without money so it just makes sense.

 

I, for one, am not suggesting they HAD to sign Grienke or anyone else. But the reality is that this team has enough cash to hand out two absurd contracts and as many as 4-5 semi-absurd (Sanchez-like) contracts and do little to no harm to their long-term financial situation. And that's using 50% revenue as a measuring stick.

 

What I think cannot be argued is that our head honcho has yet to show a willingness to consistently dabble in the 3/40 range much less the 5/75. We're going to need to see that, possibly as soon as next year, to jumpstart this thing even quicker. Waiting on prospects only is a good way to keep waiting.

 

The Twins had enough payroll flexibility to do 4 $18 mil a year contracts this offseason?

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins had enough payroll flexibility to do 4 $18 mil a year contracts this offseason?

 

I was referring to after this year when Morneau and others come off. In which case - yes, they would. Or at least close to it. I don't think people understand that next year this team could be as much as 60-70M under the 50% number. (And that's not including possible trades of Willingham and Correia among others)

[ThePuck]

I was referring to after this year when Morneau and others come off. In which case - yes, they would. Or at least close to it. I don't think people understand that next year this team could be as much as 60-70M under the 50% number. (And that's not including possible trades of Willingham and Correia among others)

 

contrary to some people's guarantee we'll spend the money savd this year next year,, in reality, there's no reason to believe they will since the Pohlad's and Ryan have said it doesn't work that way.

 

As these players keep getting promoted for the minors, payroll will continue to lower over the next 3, 4 seasons as lower paid players replace higher paid players.

 

On top of that, we're going to see less and less quality players hit the FA market anyway, with the new 25M revenue coming in and teams getting new TV deals. They'll be more likely to keep their quality guys.

 

ANyway, enjoy the continuing debate

[drjim]

contrary to some people's guarantee we'll spend the money savd this year next year,, in reality, there's no reason to believe they will since the Pohlad's and Ryan have said it doesn't work that way.

 

As these players keep getting promoted for the minors, payroll will continue to lower over the next 3, 4 seasons as lower paid players replace higher paid players.

 

On top of that, we're going to see less and less quality players hit the FA market anyway, with the new 25M revenue coming in and teams getting new TV deals. They'll be more likely to keep their quality guys.

 

ANyway, enjoy the continuing debate

 

I agree with this. I expect the payroll to be lower next year than this year. I don't think it will necessarily be a bad thing either.

 

Just because some guys are coming off the books in the next couple of years I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the payroll will keep going down. The Twins are well positioned to take on salary via trade or perhaps through a couple of Willingham type signings in the future. Plus some guys are going to start hitting arby.

[ThePuck]

I agree with this. I expect the payroll to be lower next year than this year. I don't think it will necessarily be a bad thing either.

 

Just because some guys are coming off the books in the next couple of years I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the payroll will keep going down. The Twins are well positioned to take on salary via trade or perhaps through a couple of Willingham type signings in the future. Plus some guys are going to start hitting arby.

 

you mean you don't agree with this? You wrote: 'I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the payroll will keep going down.'

 

Who will be arbitration eligible in the next three or four years that will demand a big salary? And consider the payroll droppin' off in the next two years. Morneau's, Willingham's, Doumit's, Carroll's . 1st year arbitration guys going to overtake all that salary off the books?

 

Just because they are well positioned to take on salary doesn't mean they will They were well positioned this year too.

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins are well positioned to take on salary via trade or perhaps through a couple of Willingham type signings in the future. Plus some guys are going to start hitting arby.

 

Not for a few years will any of them hit arby. And even then their price-tag isn't going to be significant. Again - potentially 60M below the 50% threshold. A few million in arby increases does not dent that and it strikes me again as a disingenuous argument on your part jim to make a point like that. It leads me to believe you'll pull anything out, no matter how inconsequential, to make your point seem more relevant.

 

But your last point is precisely my point - we have zero evidence to show that the Twins would employ their resources to several Willingham-type signings. And we not only need that, but we need them to be willing to take the next step too. I'm highly skeptical of that and that kind of aggressiveness is going to be vital to helping this team take the next step.

[drjim]

you mean you don't agree with this? You wrote: 'I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the payroll will keep going down.'

 

Who will be arbitration eligible in the next three or four years that will demand a big salary? And consider the payroll droppin' off in the next two years. Morneau's, Willingham's, Doumit's, Carroll's . 1st year arbitration guys going to overtake all that salary off the books?

 

Just because they are well positioned to take on salary doesn't mean they will They were well positioned this year too.

 

I agreed with your point and then added some extra thoughts.

[drjim]

Not for a few years will any of them hit arby. And even then their price-tag isn't going to be significant. Again - potentially 60M below the 50% threshold. A few million in arby increases does not dent that and it strikes me again as a disingenuous argument on your part jim to make a point like that. It leads me to believe you'll pull anything out, no matter how inconsequential, to make your point seem more relevant.

 

But your last point is precisely my point - we have zero evidence to show that the Twins would employ their resources to several Willingham-type signings. And we not only need that, but we need them to be willing to take the next step too. I'm highly skeptical of that and that kind of aggressiveness is going to be vital to helping this team take the next step.

 

I'm thinking Worley, Diamond, Duensing, Plouffe, Parmelee, Swarzak could all hit arby in the next 2-3 years, at the time some of the guys are coming off the books. No studs but not nothing. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous, I was just brainstorming some areas where payroll will come from in the next couple of years.

 

But you are right, the safer assumption is that the team will probably spend no money ever again.

[cmathewson]

contrary to some people's guarantee we'll spend the money savd this year next year,, in reality, there's no reason to believe they will since the Pohlad's and Ryan have said it doesn't work that way.

 

As these players keep getting promoted for the minors, payroll will continue to lower over the next 3, 4 seasons as lower paid players replace higher paid players.

 

On top of that, we're going to see less and less quality players hit the FA market anyway, with the new 25M revenue coming in and teams getting new TV deals. They'll be more likely to keep their quality guys.

 

ANyway, enjoy the continuing debate

 

Who are you talking about? Outside of Mauer, Willingham, Perkins, Correia, and Burton, everybody is only marginally over the minimum. Plouffe and Worley are arb eligible. Everyone else is per-arb. The young players aren't going to reduce payroll that much.

 

What they choose to do is speculation. They might just go with kids. Or they might get some veteran talent to complement the youth movement. They certainly will have the flexibility to do what they think is right. And there will be a lot more talent available after this year than before.

[ThePuck]

Who are you talking about? Outside of Mauer, Willingham, Perkins, Correia, and Burton, everybody is only marginally over the minimum. Plouffe and Worley are arb eligible. Everyone else is per-arb. The young players aren't going to reduce payroll that much

 

Um, Morneau will be gone...that 13M right there. Correia 5M, Pelfrey 4M, Willingham 7M, Carroll 3.75M, Doumit 3.5M. That's, what, 35M of our 76M?

 

You say: 'What they choose to do is speculation in response to how I think it'll go down.'

 

But earlier you said:

 

'If they draw better this year (which they will, imho) payroll will go up. And it will go up in proportion to how well they draw this year. And, yes, they will spend it. '

 

You say that as fact. Mine is speculation yours is fact...even though history is on my side.