Article: Ron Gardenhire talks September roster

[drjim]

While it may be true that Morneau is a marginal improvement over some current first baseman for teams looking at the playoffs, A: that's what teams are often looking for as they head into the playoffs, and B: perhaps Morneau is more than a marginal improvement over the last two guys on the bench for one or more of these teams (maybe true of all of them?). Someone would take him and the some 50%+ of the salary for either a decent prospect at the lower levels or a lower prospect at the higher levels.

 

You state that like it's obvious, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent". Other teams would surely take Morneau, I just highly doubt a team would give up anything of significance no matter how much money the Twins pick up.

 

An argument can be made to move him to clear space but there needs to be a little more than whining about the Twins being cheap to convince they are leaving a prospect on the table.

[Oxtung]

Jon Morosi at FOX Sports has another article up stating money is the sticking point.

 

One source told FOXSports.com that the money owed to Morneau — more than $3 million over the remainder of this season — has been the biggest barrier to interest in him.

 

I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to see. If there was demand and money wasn't an issue than he would have been claimed. Since he made it through waivers than we know teams don't want to pay the $3M.

[ThePuck]

Jon Morosi at FOX Sports has another article up stating money is the sticking point.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to see. If there was demand and money wasn't an issue than he would have been claimed. Since he made it through waivers than we know teams don't want to pay the $3M.

 

If they had a quote from Ryan himself saying it, it still wouldn't matter.

[drjim]

I still want to know what they are getting back.

 

Money could be the problem in the sense that if no one is offering anything substantial then Ryan is probably insisting a team pick up most (or all) of the contract. As he should.

[ashbury]

Other teams would surely take Morneau, I just highly doubt a team would give up anything of significance no matter how much money the Twins pick up.

 

I think this is true; if the Twins picked up all his remaining salary, the other team gets Morneau at no cost, so what is that worth to them? We're down to a month of the season left. Suppose the Twins were in the playoff hunt. What would you give up for a month of, say, Mike Napoli for no salary? Adam Walker? Dalton Hicks? Mason Melotakis? I hope not. And if not, then a move like that is just noise, in terms of the trading team's long term plans.

[IdahoPilgrim]

Just saying "money is the sticking point" might be misleading. I concur that's part of the story, but perhaps not all of the story.

 

I can easily imagine Ryan getting a call like such: "Say, we'd like to talk about Morneau, but we know he'll only be a rental for a couple of months, and to be honest he's had a tough year even if the last few weeks have been good, so we don't want to give up much for him - how about a couple of low-level C prospects? Oh, and we're going to ask you to eat a lot of his salary too."

 

If I were Ryan, I'd say "NO" as well. Money may well be an issue, but my guess is it is also about what they are being offered in return.

[nicksaviking]

I think this is true; if the Twins picked up all his remaining salary, the other team gets Morneau at no cost, so what is that worth to them? We're down to a month of the season left. Suppose the Twins were in the playoff hunt. What would you give up for a month of, say, Mike Napoli for no salary? Adam Walker? Dalton Hicks? Mason Melotakis? I hope not. And if not, then a move like that is just noise, in terms of the trading team's long term plans.

 

I wouldn't be happy if the Twins gave up a player like that if they were in the playoff hunt, but that's only because I would rather have the prospect than get to watch the Twins lose an additional three games to the Yankees.

 

However if I were a team that has eyes on winning playoff games...

[drjim]

Here are some other thoughts on this:

 

-my sense are the Twins are trying to do right by Morneau by trading him to a contender

-however, the are balking at picking up most of the money while also getting nothing of significance in return

-other teams won't change their offers and Ryan will blink before Aug. 31

-no chance Morneau is back next year

[LaBombo]

Here are some other thoughts on this:

 

-my sense are the Twins are trying to do right by Morneau by trading him to a contender

-however, the are balking at picking up most of the money while also getting nothing of significance in return

They got something of significance for a lesser player in Drew Butera. Gardenhire and now a reporter have identified money as the key issue in a potential Morneau deal.

 

It's difficult to see where you're coming by your opinion anywhere else but reverse-engineering it from the starting point that the front office must be doing the right thing because they're the front office.

[jokin]

They got something of significance for a lesser player in Drew Butera. Gardenhire and now a reporter have identified money as the key issue in a potential Morneau deal.

 

It's difficult to see where you're coming by your opinion anywhere else but reverse-engineering it from the starting point that the front office must be doing the right thing because they're the front office.

 

+1!

[Oxtung]

Just saying "money is the sticking point" might be misleading. I concur that's part of the story, but perhaps not all of the story.

 

I can easily imagine Ryan getting a call like such: "Say, we'd like to talk about Morneau, but we know he'll only be a rental for a couple of months, and to be honest he's had a tough year even if the last few weeks have been good, so we don't want to give up much for him - how about a couple of low-level C prospects? Oh, and we're going to ask you to eat a lot of his salary too."

 

If I were Ryan, I'd say "NO" as well. Money may well be an issue, but my guess is it is also about what they are being offered in return.

 

So you think that 37 games of Morneau is better than a chance to help the team in 2015+? I guess that is where I disagree. I'll take whatever has a chance to help this team become competitive. That isn't Morneau at this point.

[drjim]

They got something of significance for a lesser player in Drew Butera. Gardenhire and now a reporter have identified money as the key issue in a potential Morneau deal.

 

It's difficult to see where you're coming by your opinion anywhere else but reverse-engineering it from the starting point that the front office must be doing the right thing because they're the front office.

 

Fair enough. I do assume a reasonably competent front office. Seems a more reasonable assumption than getting angry or unsettled about the failure to make a trade that doesn't actually exist.

[jay]

I think this is true; if the Twins picked up all his remaining salary, the other team gets Morneau at no cost, so what is that worth to them? We're down to a month of the season left.

 

Exactly. I don't know why the expectation should be to pay out the $3M, but only get a marginal return. I fully understand the talent acquisition concerns, but is it worth $3M to get a Pedro Hernandez type? These aren't franchise changing moves we're talking about.

 

Also, what message does a deal like that send to other players that you're looking to sign in the future? Most players sign a contract with hopes of never getting traded. They understand it happens, but moves for the sake of moves might not exactly benefit a club in the long run.

 

They got something of significance for a lesser player in Drew Butera.

 

If anything, this would seem to prove they are willing to make the move if something of significance is offered...

[Mike Sixel]

jay, they've already spent the $3MM.....would you rather have Morneau leave, and get nothing, or get a lottery ticket minor leaguer? Is it worth $3MM to keep Morneau, and not have a possible Twins' prospect play the rest of the year?

 

Sunk cost.

[jay]

Sunk cost.

 

Sunk costs are generally past tense. They get you in trouble when you can't detach yourself from it because you've already spent $xx on it -- ie the signing bonus of a top pick . Morneau's salary is a prospective cost in that it's committed... only whatever part of it they'd have to cover for a team to take him with no return at all is sunk.

 

I'm a 100% Myers-Briggs 'T', but I still can see some soft side benefits of not dumping him. I wouldn't mind the playing time for a Colabello/Parmelee platoon, but waivers has already proven they're going to pay something for that.

 

In reality... I'm fine with whichever direction happens here, but I'm not going to play up either side of it into some sort of a huge affair. I'll save that energy for SPs in the offseason.

[Major League Ready]

jay, they've already spent the $3MM.....would you rather have Morneau leave, and get nothing, or get a lottery ticket minor leaguer? Is it worth $3MM to keep Morneau, and not have a possible Twins' prospect play the rest of the year?

 

Sunk cost.

 

A few people keep referring to Morneau's salary as a sunk cost. It is an obligation. A sunk cost would suggest that the expense has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. Obviously, this is not true. Morneau has yet to earn and/or be paid. Part of the negotiations center around who will pay all or part of Morneau's salary. His salary would not be approriately defined as a sunk cost until the tradeline passes unless there is absolutely no chance another team would take him and his salary and no player in returrn.

 

A likely scenario is that a portion of his salary is a sunk cost because another team would likely take him if the Twins ate part of his salary and did not recieve a player in return. It is just an educated guess but I would think a couple team would be very happy to take Justin if the Twins recieved no player compensation and paid one-third of the salary obligation. By waiting other teams are increasing the portion of that obligation paid by the twins.

 

I find it interesting that the Twins are cheap SOBs because they won't pay his salary while another team gets the benefit of his services but those teams are not cheap because they won't pay for his services.

[Mike Sixel]

No, Sunk Cost get you in trouble when you make a decision about the future based on either costs you have already incurred, or are currently obligated to incur. Keeping Morneau because you owe him money is a perfect example of sunk cost thinking. Same with not just cutting Doumit and eating his salary.

 

Doesn't really matter, if we want to argue if it is a sunk cost or not.....the point is, they owe him $3MM. They can either pay him that for the rest of the year, and then watch him walk, or they can pay him that, and get a prospect. So, what is the best use of that $3MM?

[Mike Sixel]

A few people keep referring to Morneau's salary as a sunk cost. It is an obligation. A sunk cost would suggest that the expense has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. Obviously, this is not true. Morneau has yet to earn and/or be paid. Part of the negotiations center around who will pay all or part of Morneau's salary. His salary would not be approriately defined as a sunk cost until the tradeline passes unless there is absolutely no chance another team would take him and his salary and no player in returrn.

 

A likely scenario is that a portion of his salary is a sunk cost because another team would likely take him if the Twins ate part of his salary and did not recieve a player in return. It is just an educated guess but I would think a couple team would be very happy to take Justin if the Twins recieved no player compensation and paid one-third of the salary obligation. By waiting other teams are increasing the portion of that obligation paid by the twins.

 

I find it interesting that the Twins are cheap SOBs because they won't pay his salary while another team gets the benefit of his services but those teams are not cheap because they won't pay for his services.

 

 

Who said those other teams are not cheap? I haven't read that anyplace on this thread.

[Oxtung]

By waiting other teams are increasing the portion of [the payroll] obligation paid by the twins.

But their return in production is decreasing at the same rate. So in the end it is a wash. Waiting until close to the deadline does not change the ROI in a trade. At this point the only change will be an external one. Injury, odds of contention, etc...

 

I find it interesting that the Twins are cheap SOBs because they won't pay his salary while another team gets the benefit of his services but those teams are not cheap because they won't pay for his services.

 

Other teams spend most if not all of their budget to sign players to begin the season. Perhaps a small portion is withheld for a deadline trade but the vast majority is spent.

 

That said, the Twins aren't really cheap in this instance. If they were cheap the Twins would pay the absolute minimum and move Morneau for the salary relief. I do think the Twins are overvaluing Morneau's, well I don't know what they're overvaluing but something, otherwise he would be moved for the best package available. It's clear they believe there is a benefit derived by having Morneau on this team for another 35ish games. I'll be damned if I can figure out what that is though.

[drjim]

No, Sunk Cost get you in trouble when you make a decision about the future based on either costs you have already incurred, or are currently obligated to incur. Keeping Morneau because you owe him money is a perfect example of sunk cost thinking. Same with not just cutting Doumit and eating his salary.

 

Doesn't really matter, if we want to argue if it is a sunk cost or not.....the point is, they owe him $3MM. They can either pay him that for the rest of the year, and then watch him walk, or they can pay him that, and get a prospect. So, what is the best use of that $3MM?

 

But this analysis also ignores the benefit he provides the team by staying on the roster.

 

You keep mentioning some hypothetical lottery ticket prospect, but I think that is the wrong way to look at the return because that would imply a live arm A ball guy or something. I don't think Morneau gets that. The return would be 40 man roster filler that would otherwise be DFAed or a lower level non-prospect organizational filler. Or maybe cash.

[LaBombo]

If anything, this would seem to prove they are willing to make the move if something of significance is offered...

Must have missed the part where the Twins' self-acknowledged desire not to part ways with several million dollars was a potential stumbling block in the Butera deal.

[drjim]

That said, the Twins aren't really cheap in this instance. If they were cheap the Twins would pay the absolute minimum and move Morneau for the salary relief. I do think the Twins are overvaluing Morneau's, well I don't know what they're overvaluing but something, otherwise he would be moved for the best package available. It's clear they believe there is a benefit derived by having Morneau on this team for another 35ish games. I'll be damned if I can figure out what that is though.

 

This is a good point, the Twins are certainly not cheap in this situation.

 

I still think you are overrating the possible return. My sense is they just aren't going to get anything of substance so they are demanding more salary relief than is being offered. That is why "money" is the big sticking point right now.

[LaBombo]

You keep mentioning some hypothetical lottery ticket prospect, but I think that is the wrong way to look at the return because that would imply a live arm A ball guy or something. I don't think Morneau gets that. The return would be 40 man roster filler that would otherwise be DFAed or a lower level non-prospect organizational filler. Or maybe cash.

 

Will you ever tell us why? Or is it a trade secret, like the Twins use of cybermetrics?

 

And if you're able, can you respond without the lame snippy remarks this time?

[big dog]

I'd like the Twins to bring up anyone they thought was deserving, and give them multiple chances to play. We have 10 games with zero playoff implications for anyone; sit Willingham, Doumit, Morneau if he's around, and maybe Mauer plays half of them. Our last 7 games are with the Tigers and the Indians; by then, the Indians may have fallen out, so let the kids play there too. At this point, I don't see any as those three as all that much of an asset anyway. If a contender cries because their competition has to face Willingham, with no outfield ability and a .200 average, I don't really care.

 

It's time to start sorting them out. I think there are a number of guys we don't need to keep around- let's test it now rather than later.

[jay]

Or is it a trade secret, like the Twins use of cybermetrics?

 

I did chuckle at that, but you should probably remove the next sentence of your post.

 

What is a realistic return for the guys that are heavily advocating the move? Pay all of the salary and get xx? Pay some and get xx? I'd be curious to hear some examples.

[ThePuck]

I did chuckle at that, but you should probably remove the next sentence of your post.

 

 

I think he might be frustrated that some people consistently get away with making snide comment after snide comment (ironically by supposed 'positive' people) while others gets warnings right away (either by email or chastised right on the thread itself) for posts that are nowhere near as rude or even disrespectful.

[jay]

I think he might be frustrated that some people consistently get away with making snide comment after snide comment while other gets warnings right away for posts that are nowhere near as rude or even disrespectful.

 

Maybe so and neither are okay, but I'm sensing a pretty consistent trend in posts from that user today... and more use of the ignore function might be a better approach. Just my take.

[LaBombo]

I did chuckle at that, but you should probably remove the next sentence of your post.

 

What is a realistic return for the guys that are heavily advocating the move? Pay all of the salary and get xx? Pay some and get xx? I'd be curious to hear some examples.

The 'doctor' has referred to all who dare disagree with him as "angry", "unsettled"(?) 'whiners'. So that sentence stays until he or a mod sorts it out.

 

As for the rest, the money is already spent. The Twins are looking to profit from the trade of Morneau, not avoid losing the money. The money. Is. Gone.

 

My example was the pitcher the Twins got for Butera, who the Dodgers were so excited to get that they shipped him off to either the Albuquerque Isotopes, or maybe the Springfield nuclear plant Isotopes that Homer played for, I forget which.

 

If Ryan was able to dazzle us with a deal like that, then how is a more valuable player not bringing at least as much in return?

 

So far, the only thing we're hearing is a single word, "money". And that's making some people very defensive, with the vocabulary to match.

[ThePuck]

Maybe so and neither are okay, but I'm sensing a pretty consistent trend in posts from that user today... and more use of the ignore function might be a better approach. Just my take.

 

Your take is probably better.

[jay]

My example was the pitcher the Twins got for Butera, who the Dodgers were so excited to get that they shipped him off to either the Albuquerque Isotopes, or maybe the Springfield nuclear plant Isotopes that Homer played for, I forget which.

 

If Ryan was able to dazzle us with a deal like that, then how is a more valuable player not bringing at least as much in return?

 

So far, the only thing we're hearing is a single word, "money". And that's making some people very defensive, with the vocabulary to match.

 

Does that include the Twins covering the $3M? So, you think they can pay the $3M and get a Sulbaran Low-A decent arm-type in return?