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

[Guest USAFChief]

 

But I don't see the reasoning to go in on a 5+ year deal on a pitcher. That's incredibly risky and many a front office has been burned by such deals in the recent past.

That's the going rate to acquire elite level FA starting pitching. If you're not willing to swim in that pool, then the discussion is moot. Adding from the 2 year deal range is fine, but isn't going to get you someone you want at the top of your rotation, now or 2 years from now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's the going rate to acquire elite level FA starting pitching. If you're not willing to swim in that pool, then the discussion is moot. Adding from the 2 year deal range is fine, but isn't going to get you someone you want at the top of your rotation, now or 2 years from now.

 

Elite? No. But very good? Yes, that should be possible to acquire on a four year deal if you open the checkbook on the per year rate. Roy Halladay signed a 3 + vesting option deal.

 

Outside of the Yankees, how many teams have won after paying for an "elite" starter to front their rotation?

[PseudoSABR]

1) You can't have both "younger" and "two more years data," Pseudo. Two years from now, when you're proposing signing a Grienke, that guy will have aged or will not have an extra two years in the league. One or the other, can't be both. 2) As for "why pay for older starting pitchers," you sign them now, because IF they are worthless during the last couple years of their contract, you've timed it so that core IS still under team control, and still relatively cheap, rather than sign them when that core is already up and producing. If you do that, those last expensive years of said contract will have a much greater chance of coinciding with the time when you really, really need the money to lock up that core.

I wasn't talking about Grienke himself, but rather whatever star free agent is available in two years.

 

I disagree with your rebuilding method, I think you're likely to have an expensive, ineffective pitcher when your core is hitting its prime.

[cmathewson]

Rebuilding is exactly when it makes sense to acquire short-term talent. You can't leave the fans with nothing to come to the ballpark for; revenue will dry up and it's very difficult to get it back even with good teams sometimes. Here's a good article that in part covers what happened in Cleveland: Felix Hernandez, Superstars, and Frictional Costs | FanGraphs Baseball

 

Let me get this straight. You want to go out and get a bunch of low-cost free agents to push the prospects out of their opportunities during a rebuilding year? That's a new one.

 

As for having "something for the fans to come to the ballpark for," we do have Mauer, and Morneau and Willingham. Whether we build a team of prospects with some upside around them or a team of retreads with no upside is the choice. I would take the prospects with some upside. At least you won't be discarding whatever value you have in former first-rounders like Plouffe and Paremelee by getting marginal upgrades for them.

[nokomismod]

I've come around to the side of patience on this one (after watching the Twins first month and reading this thread which also took me about a month). My reason for wanting two quality free agent starters during the fall and winter was I felt Morneau was poised to have a huge year, and Mauer, Hammer, and Doumit represented a good nucleus. I thought with our bullpen, this time could be competitive with two quality starters added to the mix. There are just too many needs with this current team and the growth has to take place from within and it needs time to play out. It's disappointing to me as I like M & M and I would love to see them win a championship together with the Twins.

[ashbury]

Let me get this straight. You want to go out and get a bunch of low-cost free agents to push the prospects out of their opportunities during a rebuilding year? That's a new one.

 

When putting it that way sounds so ridiculous, it's a pretty good sign you didn't get it straight.

 

Short-term talent is what you use to supplement the MLB-ready youngsters until the rest of the core is ready. I don't know whether the jump from AA to Target Field for Hicks was purely a talent evaluation, or if it was motivated by no better option being there. I'm not advocating signing 15 roster fillers; I'm saying that 2-year contracts make sense now, and when the core group of youngsters arrives then judicious 4-year commitments make much greater sense.

 

To sign the 4-year contracts now means assuming the risk that the later years may prove to be a waste of money, while the reward only applies with much certainty to the rebuilding team. By waiting another offseason or two, you can achieve the same risk while applying the reward to an actual contending team.

 

It's true that the caliber of player you attract with a 2-year offer is lower than those who demand 4 years. That weighs into the calculation. But to me the certainty of a Greinke or Sanchez being the same high-caliber pitcher in 2015 is not nearly great enough.

[Willihammer]

But to me the certainty of a Greinke or Sanchez being the same high-caliber pitcher in 2015 is not nearly great enough.

 

Why the certainty that Sano/Buston/Meyer/Arcia et al will pan out by 2015? In my estimation, the much more certain thing is that Greinke or Sanchez will be around and performing at a high level in 2015 than even 1 of those 4.

[Oxtung]

Let's recap

 

1. As someone said, short-term contracts tend to attract replacements, not good solid players. If you want good solid players, look to the Willingham three-year contract.

 

2. It is doubtful that there were enough long-term replacements on the free-agent market to fill 10 holes in the team (three rotation spots, three spots in the bullpen, three infielders, two outfielders).

 

3. The place where we know there were no viable long-term options was in starters, outside of a couple of guys the Twins missed, like Dempster

 

4. Lacking available talent, the Twins decided to give their internal options a chance, except where there weren't any. Then they signed short-term options to fill the remaining holes

 

5. The end game is not this year but a run starting as early as 2014. If that is your end game, it makes more sense to give internal options a chance and see what you have rather than releasing those out of options and sending the rest to Rochester

 

 

 

This is where I disagree on a few points. First, long-term FAs weren't there. Short-term FAs don't typically help over internal options. Besides availability, they did not follow your path because they prefer to give internal options a chance over signing short-term options, who only offer a marginal upgrade over internal options, if that. You can sometimes get lucky with a short term guy like Victorino. But as many of them fail as succeed. We have seen this time and again.

 

I'm not sure if you're honestly not understanding what people are saying or if you're purposely misinterpreting what people are saying.

 

I am also dumbfounded by your insistence that there was not talent available this offseason. Clearly there was much better pitching talent available than what we signed. There was everything from marginally better to superstar available this offseason.

 

Lastly this idea that unless unless the Twins have a roster to win it all they shouldn't even try to contend is absolutely crazy. Teams make improbable runs every year. That alone should be enough of a reason to put the best product on the field the Twins can every year. Which clearly they did not this season.

[ashbury]

Why the certainty that Sano/Buston/Meyer/Arcia et al will pan out by 2015?

 

There isn't. But 1) there is the weight of numbers of such players that 2015 looks like a window to aim for - management has to forecast something in order to plan. And 2) the Twins will be very sad if Sano flames out but he won't cost the team any money that makes them have to re-prioritize like a big contract would.

[Willihammer]

There isn't. But 1) there is the weight of numbers of such players that 2015 looks like a window to aim for - management has to forecast something in order to plan. And 2) the Twins will be very sad if Sano flames out but he won't cost the team any money that makes them have to re-prioritize like a big contract would.

 

What if they do flame out, or don't meet expectations. The 2015 team is as bad or worse than the 2013 team, then what? It seems to me we are right back where we are now. "Don't sign any big FAs now, we're not going to be competitive?"

 

There is a HoF catcher in the prime of his career on this staff. A 33 year old who slugs more home runs than any Twin since Killebrew. We have some guys have been tested already and passed. There is a lot less that can go wrong in building around those sort of guys than these question marks I think. Not to mention, you know, the years being saved.

[cmathewson]

I'm not sure if you're honestly not understanding what people are saying or if you're purposely misinterpreting what people are saying.

 

I am also dumbfounded by your insistence that there was not talent available this offseason. Clearly there was much better pitching talent available than what we signed. There was everything from marginally better to superstar available this offseason.

 

Lastly this idea that unless unless the Twins have a roster to win it all they shouldn't even try to contend is absolutely crazy. Teams make improbable runs every year. That alone should be enough of a reason to put the best product on the field the Twins can every year. Which clearly they did not this season.

 

We have been over the pitching issue many many times. The market was thin for front-of-the-rotation pitchers. I would have preferred Dempster to just about any of the guys who got two-year deals. Otherwise it was a crap shoot. Same with the bullpen.

 

I seriously doubt I can explain my position any more clearly than I did in the post you quote. It's really simple. For each position, you can choose to try an internal prospect or an external free agent. The FAs available on two-year deals or less were not significantly better than the prospects we chose (Dozier, Florimon, Plouffe, Parmalee, Hicks). You could make an argument about Hicks and Florimon. Maybe even Dozier, but it's a feeble argument, especially since the whole point of rebuilding is to give guys opportunities and evaluate what you have at the end of the year. You never learn what you have if you don't give people opportunities. You never improve if you continuously bring in FAs with no upside.

 

But this is the crux of the argument: Choosing prospects over retreads is not about money as much as development. Several posters claim they just chose prospects to save money. I'm sure they don't mind saving money. But I don't think that is the primary reason to make the decision that favors prospects. The primary reason is to improve the team long term.

[TheLeviathan]

In two years, I think the prudent thing to do is to expand that to four year deals in an attempt to nab a Sanchez-type pitcher to push the team into the playoffs (hopefully). Offer more money per year for one year less and see if you can get someone to bite.

 

But I don't see the reasoning to go in on a 5+ year deal on a pitcher. That's incredibly risky and many a front office has been burned by such deals in the recent past.

 

That's reasonable Brock but that doesn't explain this bizarre notion of hindering future payroll. Any deal then would hinder it, the advantage of signing now is it reduces risk should something catastrophic happen to create a payroll drain. And while avoiding five year deals is prudent in many ways it eliminates the ability to retain or add elite pitchers.

 

I guess I see extremely limited options to supplement our team in the future. And for the "diminishing returns" crowd, signing a bunch of menial 2 year deals or a mini horde of Willingham contracts, won't be huge difference makers. We will have to stretch ourselves into some serious risk players.

[Guest USAFChief]

I wasn't talking about Grienke himself, but rather whatever star free agent is available in two years.

 

I disagree with your rebuilding method, I think you're likely to have an expensive, ineffective pitcher when your core is hitting its prime.

A) I understand you were talking about "a Greinke," not THE Greinke. But the issue of age isn't going to change 2 yrs from now. We'll be talking about someone roughly Greinke's current age, late 20's early 30's.

 

There is certainly risk in any long term contract, especially with pitchers. But the risk now is no greater than the risk will be two years from now. Let's take Greinke's 6 year deal as an example. I'll pull a number out of my arse and say 2 of those 6 years are a waste of money, so the Dodgers get 4 years of value out of a 6 year contract. They've in effect completely wasted 2 years worth of salary, and have to assemble a team with whatever "salary cap" space they have left over. I don't see the difference in Greinke pocketing 2 years of free money and the Pohlad brothers pocketing 2 years of free money. Everyone agrees the Twins could be spending a lot more money, right? So now (and most likely next year as well), instead of having $30-40M of salary sitting on the disabled list, wasted, the Pohlads have $30-40M sitting in the bank, wasted. All you've done is move that wasted "cap space" around, and gone from "probably will waste money" to "absolutely, guaranteed will waste money" to boot.

 

3) It's possible you'll have an "expensive, ineffective pitcher" when the core is hitting it's prime, but delaying signing that pitcher until the core is in place makes it MORE likely that'll hit you at a bad time, not less. The time to afford someone making all that money is when the core is young and cheap, not when they're starting to need to get paid.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

If you sign a free agent pitcher on a 5 year deal, not expecting to contend for the first 2-3 years of that deal, a lot of bad things can happen over those years that would hurt your team. If Greinke gets hurt or becomes ineffective, then you have to go out and get another pitcher to replace him, and/or you are screwed for the rest of his contract. That's why these deals never seem to pan out. It doesn't matter if you have the money right now or not, you still get bent over. The reason for not doing it now is that it's two more years of possible injury and ineffectiveness. I wouldn't make that gamble on any pitcher right now.

[cmathewson]

A) I understand you were talking about "a Greinke," not THE Greinke. But the issue of age isn't going to change 2 yrs from now. We'll be talking about someone roughly Greinke's current age, late 20's early 30's.

 

There is certainly risk in any long term contract, especially with pitchers. But the risk now is no greater than the risk will be two years from now. Let's take Greinke's 6 year deal as an example. I'll pull a number out of my arse and say 2 of those 6 years are a waste of money, so the Dodgers get 4 years of value out of a 6 year contract. They've in effect completely wasted 2 years worth of salary, and have to assemble a team with whatever "salary cap" space they have left over. I don't see the difference in Greinke pocketing 2 years of free money and the Pohlad brothers pocketing 2 years of free money. Everyone agrees the Twins could be spending a lot more money, right? So now (and most likely next year as well), instead of having $30-40M of salary sitting on the disabled list, wasted, the Pohlads have $30-40M sitting in the bank, wasted. All you've done is move that wasted "cap space" around, and gone from "probably will waste money" to "absolutely, guaranteed will waste money" to boot.

 

3) It's possible you'll have an "expensive, ineffective pitcher" when the core is hitting it's prime, but delaying signing that pitcher until the core is in place makes it MORE likely that'll hit you at a bad time, not less. The time to afford someone making all that money is when the core is young and cheap, not when they're starting to need to get paid.

 

I agree with this. I just don't think Greinke or Sanchez were the right pitchers. Looking at Cots, it seems like there are a lot more front-line pitchers potentially available via free agency after this season than last. I'd rather have Lester, for example, than Greinke, assuming the money is the same. I'd say the same thing for Shields vs. Sanchez. And the list goes on. By waiting a year, wouldn't he potentially have one more year with the Sano team?

[drjim]

A) I understand you were talking about "a Greinke," not THE Greinke. But the issue of age isn't going to change 2 yrs from now. We'll be talking about someone roughly Greinke's current age, late 20's early 30's.

 

There is certainly risk in any long term contract, especially with pitchers. But the risk now is no greater than the risk will be two years from now. Let's take Greinke's 6 year deal as an example. I'll pull a number out of my arse and say 2 of those 6 years are a waste of money, so the Dodgers get 4 years of value out of a 6 year contract. They've in effect completely wasted 2 years worth of salary, and have to assemble a team with whatever "salary cap" space they have left over. I don't see the difference in Greinke pocketing 2 years of free money and the Pohlad brothers pocketing 2 years of free money. Everyone agrees the Twins could be spending a lot more money, right? So now (and most likely next year as well), instead of having $30-40M of salary sitting on the disabled list, wasted, the Pohlads have $30-40M sitting in the bank, wasted. All you've done is move that wasted "cap space" around, and gone from "probably will waste money" to "absolutely, guaranteed will waste money" to boot.

 

3) It's possible you'll have an "expensive, ineffective pitcher" when the core is hitting it's prime, but delaying signing that pitcher until the core is in place makes it MORE likely that'll hit y

ou at a bad time, not less. The time to afford someone making all that money is when the core is young and cheap, not when they're starting to need to get paid.

 

I would personally argue that is poor risk management. Realistically the Twins can sign one Greinke-like guy in free agency. Why make that decision and take on that risk two years before you have to? If he gets hurt or starts to decline you have already blown your free agent wad and you will have a lesser pitcher to supplement the roster at that point.

[drjim]

I agree with this. I just don't think Greinke or Sanchez were the right pitchers. Looking at Cots, it seems like there are a lot more front-line pitchers potentially available via free agency after this season than last. I'd rather have Lester, for example, than Greinke, assuming the money is the same. I'd say the same thing for Shields vs. Sanchez. And the list goes on. By waiting a year, wouldn't he potentially have one more year with the Sano team?

 

Shields has a reasonable option that will be picked up if not extended. Others will be extended and taken off the market as well.

[Guest USAFChief]

I would personally argue that is poor risk management. Realistically the Twins can sign one Greinke-like guy in free agency. Why make that decision and take on that risk two years before you have to? If he gets hurt or starts to decline you have already blown your free agent wad and you will have a lesser pitcher to supplement the roster at that point.

You're forgetting some risks: 1. The very real risk we're all just arguing a moot point here, because the Twins will never take that risk. Ever. Two years from now they'll have other excuses for not adding a front line pitcher through free agency. 2. The risk that even if they wanted to add such a pitcher, there won't be any available. 3. The risk that they will unexpectedly contend this year or next, in which case a front line pitcher might have put them over the top. 4. The risk they continue to lose 90+ games over the next couple years, and their revenues drop to a point where they realistically can't afford such a pitcher.

 

In any case, like I said, they're wasting money now. Lots of it, just sitting there not helping the baseball team, collecting interest. It's gone after this year, we know they've said many times they budget year to year, and they're not going to use the money they didn't spend this year at some point in the future. I don't see why guaranteed wasted money now is better than potentially wasted money in the future.

[jokin]

I've come around to the side of patience on this one (after watching the Twins first month and reading this thread which also took me about a month). My reason for wanting two quality free agent starters during the fall and winter was I felt Morneau was poised to have a huge year, and Mauer, Hammer, and Doumit represented a good nucleus. I thought with our bullpen, this time could be competitive with two quality starters added to the mix. There are just too many needs with this current team and the growth has to take place from within and it needs time to play out. It's disappointing to me as I like M & M and I would love to see them win a championship together with the Twins.

 

Wow. You're already in support of writing off this season and "settling" for more of the same-old, same-old? When, if only your wish (mine too!) for 2 "quality free agent starters" had been granted, it's now pretty obvious with 6 weeks of play in the books, that this team,

 

for all its glaring holes and needs,

and sputtering rookies and sophs soon making the necessary adjustments,

and slumping regulars soon firing on all cylinders,

 

would have been plenty good enough to compete in this division?

[cmathewson]

Shields has a reasonable option that will be picked up if not extended. Others will be extended and taken off the market as well.

 

I'm sure some of the following will be extended. But many more will enter free agency. At first glance, it looks like a better crop than last year. I deleted a lot of guys who are not really options, as well.

 

Bronson Arroyo

Scott Baker

Erik Bedard

A.J. Burnett

Chris Capuano *

Jorge De La Rosa

Scott Feldman

Matt Garza

Roy Halladay *

Jason Hammel

Aaron Harang *

Rich Harden

Dan Haren

Tim Hudson

Phil Hughes

Ubaldo Jimenez *

Josh Johnson

Hiroki Kuroda

John Lannan

Jon Lester *

Ted Lilly

Tim Lincecum

Derek Lowe

Shaun Marcum

Brett Myers *

Ricky Nolasco

Mike Pelfrey

Wandy Rodriguez *

Jonathan Sanchez

Ervin Santana

Joe Saunders *

James Shields *

Tim Stauffer

Jason Vargas

Ryan Vogelsong *

Edinson Volquez

Tsuyoshi Wada *

Chris Young

Barry Zito

[bird]

Dang. I was hoping Correia would be available. To Detroit.

[Oxtung]

We have been over the pitching issue many many times. The market was thin for front-of-the-rotation pitchers. I would have preferred Dempster to just about any of the guys who got two-year deals. Otherwise it was a crap shoot. Same with the bullpen.

 

That's the thing...it really wasn't a crapshoot. There were pitchers that weren't going to break the bank that were clearly better than what the Twins got.

 

I seriously doubt I can explain my position any more clearly than I did in the post you quote. It's really simple. For each position, you can choose to try an internal prospect or an external free agent. The FAs available on two-year deals or less were not significantly better than the prospects we chose (Dozier, Florimon, Plouffe, Parmalee, Hicks). You could make an argument about Hicks and Florimon. Maybe even Dozier, but it's a feeble argument, especially since the whole point of rebuilding is to give guys opportunities and evaluate what you have at the end of the year. You never learn what you have if you don't give people opportunities. You never improve if you continuously bring in FAs with no upside.

Nobody is making the argument (at least that I have seen) that the Twins shouldn't be playing prospects. What I, and I think others, are saying is we had huge holes at SS and 2 pitchers where we had no prospects showing they were ready to contribute. The Twins, instead of using their available payroll to find average or better replacements, decided to find pretty much the worst pitchers available this last off season and just pocket the cash.

 

But this is the crux of the argument: Choosing prospects over retreads is not about money as much as development. Several posters claim they just chose prospects to save money. I'm sure they don't mind saving money. But I don't think that is the primary reason to make the decision that favors prospects. The primary reason is to improve the team long term.

 

How does playing Florimon, Correia and Pelfrey help the team long term?

[The Wise One]

That's the thing...it really wasn't a crapshoot. There were pitchers that weren't going to break the bank that were clearly better than what the Twins got.

 

How does playing Florimon, Correia and Pelfrey help the team long term?

 

What shortstop was available for the Twins to sign? Drew with his generally poor fielding?

 

Pelfrey pre injury is a far better option than Deduno Devries or Walters. While it may be questionable if he gets back to that level by midseason

 

Better options for pitchers yes. Significantly better no. At the end of the year there will be enough stastics to judge. My guess would be that a lot of these "better " options will still have fip above 4.25. Argueing which mediocre pitcher is better is pointless.

[drjim]

You're forgetting some risks: 1. The very real risk we're all just arguing a moot point here, because the Twins will never take that risk. Ever. Two years from now they'll have other excuses for not adding a front line pitcher through free agency. 2. The risk that even if they wanted to add such a pitcher, there won't be any available. 3. The risk that they will unexpectedly contend this year or next, in which case a front line pitcher might have put them over the top. 4. The risk they continue to lose 90+ games over the next couple years, and their revenues drop to a point where they realistically can't afford such a pitcher.

 

In any case, like I said, they're wasting money now. Lots of it, just sitting there not helping the baseball team, collecting interest. It's gone after this year, we know they've said many times they budget year to year, and they're not going to use the money they didn't spend this year at some point in the future. I don't see why guaranteed wasted money now is better than potentially wasted money in the future.

 

I agree we are arguing a moot point but probably for different reason than you.

 

I still believe it would have taken 8/200 to get Greinke and 6/120 to get Sanchez and I wouldn't touch either of those contracts available money or not. The more I have researched Greinke as this debate has gone the more I would avoid him. Locking up his 9th-15/16th years seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

[TheLeviathan]

The more I have researched Greinke as this debate has gone the more I would avoid him. Locking up his 9th-15/16th years seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

If you're waiting for a wartless elite pitcher/contract combo.....you'll be waiting awhile.

[drjim]

If you're waiting for a wartless elite pitcher/contract combo.....you'll be waiting awhile.

 

Or you have to trade for and/or develop them yourself and extend while you still have control.

[TheLeviathan]

Or you have to trade for and/or develop them yourself and extend while you still have control.

 

How is extending a player for the same price any different than signing one?

 

(And unwillingness to make major trades of prospects for established studs is also not a historical strength of our current GM mind you)

[The Wise One]

If you're waiting for a wartless elite pitcher/contract combo.....you'll be waiting awhile.

 

Warts are okay, it is the ticking time bomb contracts that are worrisome. That is what Grinke's contract would be. Sanchez not so much so. Notice how Dempster did not get three years as he wanted. Buehrle got 4 years, not a 6. Do you think age had a little to do with that?

[The Wise One]

How is extending a player for the same price any different than signing one?

 

(And unwillingness to make major trades of prospects for established studs is also not a historical strength of our current GM mind you)

you would be a lot more certain of medical history

[Brock Beauchamp]

How is extending a player for the same price any different than signing one?

 

(And unwillingness to make major trades of prospects for established studs is also not a historical strength of our current GM mind you)

 

You know the guy, you know he can hit/pitch in your ballpark, you know his history, etc.

 

I'm not saying that extending guys is the only way to go but there are certainly reasons to do it.