Why Don’t Twins Value Money Less and Players More?

[Ted Schwerzler]

Derek Falvey and Thad Levine are more than a half-dozen seasons into their tenure as the heads of Minnesota’s front office. We’ve begun to see some pattern in how they acquire talent, and as the expectations for competition and payroll grow, it’s worth wondering why they prefer to operate in a certain way.

 

Image courtesy of Jordan Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

Over the years, and immediately when hired, two words that Derek Falvey and Thad Levine used consistently were “creative” and “collaborative.” The duo know they are operating a mid-market team, and while the Pohlad family has an immense fortune, there’s still a level of business savvy that goes into spending on a baseball team.

The goal in hiring Falvey specifically was to create a forward-thinking developmental machine that churned out talent along the lines of his former employer, the Cleveland Guardians. Needing to be more competitive on the pitching front, an area in which considerable money is often spent, developing talent is a surefire way to control spending and advance the roster.

A question has presented itself, however. Why are the Twins seemingly less interested in spending money than they are player capital?

Just a season ago, owners fought tooth and nail to stifle the earnings of major-league talent. There has never been a point in which minor-league talent was fairly compensated, and despite growing revenues the slices of the pie for players and owners has not been in harmony. One such reason that happens is due to the team control placed on a player for the better part of their most productive seasons as an athlete.

Unlike most other professional sports, the way team control works carries a substantial monetary value. It is in that understanding where it seems odd a team like the Twins would be so willing to make deals rather than to open the pocketbook.

Spencer Steer is gone. Christian Encarnacion-Strand is gone. Chase Petty is gone. The Twins have taken a good chunk of their top prospects and moved them to acquire big-league talent. There’s nothing wrong with those moves in and of themselves, but they seem equally active in free agency discussions as they do the trade market.

Thus far, trades have all but stalled out this offseason. The focus for most front offices has been to pay for talent. Rather than giving away controllable players to the opposition, front offices have spent dollars they will undoubtedly recoup in revenue, and make more as they’ve just used them to acquire an asset. Minnesota should be pushing toward something like a $160 million in Opening Day payroll for 2023, and yet all of the dollars have been held close to their chest.

When targeting talents like Carlos Correa, Carlos Rodon, or Christian Vazquez as has been reported, Minnesota has not yet made enough of an offer to generate a Yes. If that is due, in part, because a secondary option is seen as an ok outcome, it’s a gross misuse of the funds available to them. Whether a limit by the Pohlad family is in place or not, there should never be a time in which free agency is seen as a less than desirable avenue.

There’s no limit to the amount of money a Major League franchise will continue to be worth. Revenues skyrocket and will surpass $11 billion for Major League Baseball this season. Each team will see over $100 million in their pockets before even selling a ticket this season. That not being used to the fullest capacity, and instead piecing out players that can keep payroll down and develop within a system seems like a misstep.

Minnesota’s front office has taken a cautious approach more often than not. Even when Correa was signed, it was only after a player-friendly deal was presented to the team by agent Scott Boras. It’s beyond time that attacking the free agent market with a wad of cash becomes a bigger part of the practice, and at some point, it’d be great to retain more of what’s already in the system for future use.

View full article

[Mike Sixel]

And it isn't like players they trade for don't get hurt.... There's risk too.

[bloomwcjkl]

I like being a "small ball" team. Making the playoffs is our World Series.

Develop young talent and then trade them off before signing big deals.

No way to compete with the big 6-8 on salary. Don't even try.

I hope they don't feel like they have to make a "big deal" now that Correa (luckily) went with the Gints.

Small Ball 23.

[Ryan_K]

We could have had Correa. I'm surprised he was willing to go that long for 350 I had thought it would be 10 at 35, this was much friendlier. Padres could spend this and so could we, it's all about resource allocation which the FO has done a poor job with. Consider that we have our TV deal coming up and we are coming from 2 sub 500 seasons, why would the networks think they will get a lot of impressions with the product on the field. Baseball is a business and it feels like we have poor allocates of resources. 

[EGFTShaw]

24 minutes ago, Ryan_K said:

We could have had Correa. I'm surprised he was willing to go that long for 350 I had thought it would be 10 at 35, this was much friendlier. Padres could spend this and so could we, it's all about resource allocation which the FO has done a poor job with. Consider that we have our TV deal coming up and we are coming from 2 sub 500 seasons, why would the networks think they will get a lot of impressions with the product on the field. Baseball is a business and it feels like we have poor allocates of resources. 

Talking to a MLB fanatic friend last night.  Same feeling.  Now $285M wasn't going to get it done, and there is not much difference in a year when you talk an additional $7M.  I know the perspective, but I figured it was doable alone on ticket sales, new TV contract and merchandising and had not even figured in the $100M mentioned above from the league deals.  $342-$350M for 10 years should have been the offer, not $285M and definitely not UNDER $300M.  
 

[EGFTShaw]

48 minutes ago, bloomwcjkl said:

Small Ball 23.

Small Money Ball '23
MN Money Ball '23
From the Frozen Tundra of Target Field in November Ball.

?

[Trov]

I love how fans like to spend other people's money.  None of us know the books, or what the owners allow the FO to spend.  We made a competitive offer of per year amount, but were not willing to sign him until he was 41.  He will actually be 42 when the contract ends, but just turned 42.  It is easy for fans to say offer him 10 at 350.  This would mean for about 4 to 6 years was have SS on lock.  4 to 6 years of him at 3b.  This would cause us to trade more prospects, because he would be blocking some of them.  

By the end of the deal we would be paying 35 mil to a guy that is most likely not even playing above replacement level, maybe he still would be, but doubtful at 35 plus he is really putting up too much WAR even at 3b.  Now, would the 7 mil by that time make much of a difference most likely not.  

I am not defending the choice not to up the offer, if they were given that option, it is possible the offer to Correa was a take it or leave it offer where he could not bounce it off the Twins, we do not know how the talks actually went. For all we know, we made our offer, then Giants called up said we will give you this offer, but you need to accept it right now, no calling any other teams or it is off the table.  It is possible the Twins did not even know the Giants offer until too late.  

I bet many here that want the Twins to go into the luxury tax level like the Padres would be just as mad when the players are not earning the money we throw at them if it ends up like a Hosmer deal, or how many were mad at Joe's contract near the end. 

[old nurse]

The Correa deal only makes sense if the Giants are intent on keeping under the tax threshold, think he will still be elite at 35 and sill have a little value at 40.  That is a high risk move. They Giants are a little desperate to win. Forbes had them at $185 per fan in revenue. The million less in attendance from their heyday puts a lot of pressure to win. I would not be surprised if Rodin gets a deal with them.

As far as the Twins and money goes, they cannot buy their way out of the middle. Spending with caution. 10/285 is caution. They cannot afford to not be. Somewhere visible there must be a picture of Bill Smith hanging to remind them of that. I think there is also a picture of Matt Capps to remind them of trades

[roger]

Question Ted.  You stated that they made offers to Rodon, Correa and Christian Vazquez, but have yet to get a Yes.  Didn't Vazquez sign with the Twins for $30M over three years?  Was that reporting false?

[Mike Sixel]

17 minutes ago, old nurse said:

The Correa deal only makes sense if the Giants are intent on keeping under the tax threshold, think he will still be elite at 35 and sill have a little value at 40.  That is a high risk move. They Giants are a little desperate to win. Forbes had them at $185 per fan in revenue. The million less in attendance from their heyday puts a lot of pressure to win. I would not be surprised if Rodin gets a deal with them.

As far as the Twins and money goes, they cannot buy their way out of the middle. Spending with caution. 10/285 is caution. They cannot afford to not be. Somewhere visible there must be a picture of Bill Smith hanging to remind them of that. I think there is also a picture of Matt Capps to remind them of trades

What's the actual difference between 10 285 and 13 350? I mean, given the time value of money, not much really. It's actually less per year. If he's awful after 10 years, just cut him. 

[spanman2]

This article from the Ryan Administration is NOT a knock on the Mauer contract.  I wonder how the current regime feels on the topic.  Hopefully the link works for you all...I doubt they are going much about that 52ish number today.  

https://www.twincities.com/2012/12/04/minnesota-twins-gm-terry-ryan-doesnt-want-top-heavy-payroll/  

[jmlease1]

27 minutes ago, roger said:

Question Ted.  You stated that they made offers to Rodon, Correa and Christian Vazquez, but have yet to get a Yes.  Didn't Vazquez sign with the Twins for $30M over three years?  Was that reporting false?

i suspect Ted wrote the piece before the Vazquez signing was announced and an edit was missed after it had been queued up for publication. Happens.

[Rosterman]

2 hours ago, EGFTShaw said:

Talking to a MLB fanatic friend last night.  Same feeling.  Now $285M wasn't going to get it done, and there is not much difference in a year when you talk an additional $7M.  I know the perspective, but I figured it was doable alone on ticket sales, new TV contract and merchandising and had not even figured in the $100M mentioned above from the league deals.  $342-$350M for 10 years should have been the offer, not $285M and definitely not UNDER $300M.  
 

Heck, give him six years at $300m. Really screw the salary amrketplace. Correa would still have six more years to do another contract. You would hope he would be a superstar for at least four of those six years. By then, most of the taent you are currently developing will be getting expensive, but you will also have greater revenue.

[mikelink45]

The counter question is - why do fans think teams should pay outrageous contracts?  If every team signs a dumb contract they are still all in the same place. 

[Mike Sixel]

46 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

The counter question is - why do fans think teams should pay outrageous contracts?  If every team signs a dumb contract they are still all in the same place. 

Why is it dumb to pay players? I don't get this. Where should the money go?

[Seth Stohs]

4 hours ago, roger said:

Question Ted.  You stated that they made offers to Rodon, Correa and Christian Vazquez, but have yet to get a Yes.  Didn't Vazquez sign with the Twins for $30M over three years?  Was that reporting false?

Yes, the Twins signed Vazquez. @Ted Schwerzler wrote this article on Sunday. The idea is obviously always to go back into articles to make sure they are up-to-date. 

[Doctor Evil]

I'm glad the Twins didn't sign Correa. I would like to see them go young and stop pretending they are not in a rebuild.

[DocBauer]

The system isn't depleted of talent, though it's split between AAA and then A ball. But it's not depleted. And the upcoming draft should/could add some very nice talent. And trades are a good way to augment your team. But as a mid market team, you need to hold on to and develop as much of your talent as you can. Position wise, the system looks pretty good. Things don't look as strong pitching wise...though there have been a few encouraging arms to reach the ML level the past 2yrs...due to injury, poor performance, and possibly by being too focused on position players.

But FA SHOULD be part of the equation, even if we're not talking about a $300M type. And there are always good players available that aren't the TOP FA on the market. The last offseason is a perfect example where there were arms way better than Archer and Bundy. But they seemed so focused on the Buxton extension that they just ignored the market.

I am not going to get in to a debate about the Twins ownership and spending. While I think it's easy, and maybe accurate, to say they bring in more $ from the Twins than we know/speculate. Even when comparing other mid market organizations, it's still almost impossible to know how things like TV and radio deals affect available $ to spend. And I would have no right to demand a business not make a profit from their team. Conversely, I think there are owners out there who view their sports teams as a "hobby" and could hardly care about profits vs the fun and ego of winning. Now, that doesn't always work year to year. We can see that with WS wins from KC and Atlanta the past few years vs disappointing results for the Dodgers, Mets, etc.

But FA HAS to be a part of your approach. Even if you can't ever, or hardly ever, swim in the deep end of the pool, you can still target some very good players that you CAN add to augment what you have and build the very best OVERALL TEAM that you can put together.

I don't know that the Twins are adverse to playing in FA, but just waiting for value won't get it done. They need to target the 1 or 2 they really like/want/need and THEN play the waiting game for additional value.

[Reptevia]

Because they’re in the business of making money, not players. Player’s are just a commodity for revenue generation. 

[sorney]

Yeah, seems very pennywise and pound foolish to constantly ignore FA's and use prospects to acquire talent.  I get there are outliers, and examples to the contrary, but this FO has been pretty much "wait out the market, try to get a bargain or last man standing, if not, we can flip prospects".   That seems like a sketchy strategy, especially when you can literally acquire talent for just $$$ in FA, and use your prospects as cheap labor.  Obviously there is a balance.....but this never swimming in the deep end gets old

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, Doctor Evil said:

I'm glad the Twins didn't sign Correa. I would like to see them go young and stop pretending they are not in a rebuild.

They're always going to be in a rebuild. Trade the expensive players for cheaper players. That's actually their plan with the pitching staff - have a pipeline and replace a starting pitcher every season.

[DJL44]

Is the goal of the Twins to maximize their profit or to win baseball games? I think they look more at the bottom line than the winning percentage at the end of the season. There's more than one way to keep score.

[old nurse]

17 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

What's the actual difference between 10 285 and 13 350? I mean, given the time value of money, not much really. It's actually less per year. If he's awful after 10 years, just cut him. 

The difference is not having a good player for maybe 3-6 years versus 6-10 years. Option 1 can be managed, option 2 cripples the team

[old nurse]

16 hours ago, Rosterman said:

Heck, give him six years at $300m. Really screw the salary amrketplace. Correa would still have six more years to do another contract. You would hope he would be a superstar for at least four of those six years. By then, most of the taent you are currently developing will be getting expensive, but you will also have greater revenue.

A bird in hand comes to mind. The 359 in hand is far better than 305. You bet on yourself in your 20s, not 30s. Buxton bet on himself and won. Polanco, Sanyo, and Kepler took the money. 2 out of the three probably won.  With Polanco’d injuries, he may also have won

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

The difference is not having a good player for maybe 3-6 years versus 6-10 years. Option 1 can be managed, option 2 cripples the team

More than not having a great players at all? You want great players, you pay. Or somehow develop a bunch at the same time.