Article: Shortcuts

[S.]

The phrasing and use of the term shortcut really ticks me off, in the context TR is using it in. Using FA to acquire players to drastically improve your team (especially when you have a ton of glaring problems and a giant pile of money to spend) is a normal part of the game for most teams. That isn't a shortcut, it is the norm. We are taking the long route.

 

I just don't understand why being efficient and utilizing all avenues is a shortcut in any way. No one is saying we need to construct a 25 man roster full of big name FAs. No one is saying we need to sign 5 top tier pitchers. It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm not actually saying these two situations are literally comparable but the point still stands.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The phrasing and use of the term shortcut really ticks me off, in the context TR is using it in. Using FA to acquire players to drastically improve your team (especially when you have a ton of glaring problems and a giant pile of money to spend) is a normal part of the game for most teams. That isn't a shortcut, it is the norm. We are taking the long route.

 

I just don't understand why being efficient and utilizing all avenues is a shortcut in any way. No one is saying we need to construct a 25 man roster full of big name FAs. No one is saying we need to sign 5 top tier pitchers. It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm not actually saying these two situations are literally comparable but the point still stands.

 

Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut. Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.

[Heimer]

Take anybody with potential under 30.

[S.]

Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut.

I probably could've just said to improve your team and taken out the "drastically". In the Twins case, it wouldn't take that much talent to drastically improve our starting pitching in it's current state, to be fair.

 

Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.

Once you start talking 4 and 5+ year contracts it gets a bit more complicated, but the fact of the matter is our pitching is not suddenly going to get better without some combination of FA and trades, unless we're making assumptions that every pitching prospect we have in the minors is going to meet and exceed any expectations, hopes, or dreams we have about their ability. If in 3-5 years our biggest problem is a bad contract, then I'd say we've done pretty damn well. I'd much rather be bitching about a good team with a bad contract than a bad team with a rotation that bears any resemblance to what we trotted out there the last 2 years.

[Major League Ready]

There is a lot of presumtion here without even qualifying where it is that "we want to go. My presumption is that "where" means achieving several things. My guess is the first thing on the lists are things that provide sustainability. For example, improved process drafting, international signings, and development. It would be a safe bet the ultimate "where" is world series contention. That is not going to happen through free agency. That also does not mean they won't utilize free agency to put a better product on the field. So, I intepret his comment only so far as to conclude that he feels short cuts won't build a world series contender that is capable of sustaining a high level.

 

Sustaining the orgaization also has several implications for management and organizational development. Nobody here is referencing these issues but I would bet TR is considering them when he makes these statements. We should not assume the very limited context of free agency as "short cuts".

 

All anyone hears is that they won't spend. Bad contracts and/or players past their prime are a real detriment to any organization but they are absolutely killers when they are 5+ years for teams outside the very top revenue generators. The risk and impact often does not appear to be considered here. Looking back on top FA signings the past few years, there is at least as much failure as success. Fielder ranked 14th in WAR last year at 2.2. That salary would be an albatross for us and with that body type he could be really bad the last 2-3 years of his contract. Swisher ranked 13th in his first of a 4 year deal. Hamilton delivered a WAR of 1.9 for $25M in his first year. I don't like his odds of being better in the last couple years of that deal. BJ Upton's WAR was -.6. Michael Bourne had a WAR of 2.0. Edwin Jackson and Ryan Dempster were at very best mediocre. Pujlos could very well be back next season but he deliver a WAR of .7 last year and that contract could be a real clunker for 4-5 years. Reyes WAR ranked 15th at 2.2. Buehrle had an almost identical ERA to Correia.

 

I am not a scout but Sanatana and Jemenez seem really risky to me. I hope they don't risk a future that appears to be very bright and sustainable by signing one of these guys to a 5 year deal and giving up a high draft pick. Feldman, Nolasco, Kazmir, Hughes all offer substantial upgrades without the risk. Burnett or Orroyo might even make sense on a 1 year deal with a 2nd year team option. Two of those 6 SPs + Morales or Loney and I will loook forward to 2014. Maybe Johnson as a 3rd high risk/reward add.

[Winston Smith]

There is a good post at MLB Rumors with this graph. Worth a read.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

http://rotoauthority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515b9a69e2019b00bce92b970d-500wi

[MileHighTwinsFan]

I think FA starting pitcher signings are fraught with risk and intricacies that are far more complicated than simply dropping a bundle on the best available arm as a shortcut. The key is aligning a player's peak ability with the development of the rest of the team. It makes no sense to sign a high dollar starter if the rest of the lineup is not positioned to win. Many pitchers have such a limited window of productivity, that an ill-timed investment could leave many teams holding the bag on a guy who is past his prime when the rest of the team is ready for primetime. It is for this reason that it makes way more sense to develop within the system and add a key piece at the exact right time - namely at the trade deadline when the team is competitive or at a point when the team is clearly the dominant team in the division. See Tigers for insight here.

[Mike Sixel]

Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut. Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.

 

why is that the question? Are most contracts worth it? The questions should be about what you can afford, not if it is worth it every year of the deal. Remember when everyone said Hunter would not be worth it in Anaheim?

[Mike Sixel]

and propects aren't fraught with risk?

[S.]

It is for this reason that it makes way more sense to develop within the system and add a key piece at the exact right time - namely at the trade deadline when the team is competitive or at a point when the team is clearly the dominant team in the division.

In order to need a key piece to push our rotation over the top, we would need to already have a rotation that was near the top. Our current rotation is near or at the bottom in pretty much every way. I have no clue how you can look at the pitching in our system and think that somehow in the next few years our pitching rotation will be good enough to only need a "key piece" without seriously utilizing FA and trades in the meantime.

[nicksaviking]

My particular response was to Thrylos's comment about MiLB FAs. I should have used Reply With Quote, in order to be clearer, although I thought that would come through when I said "organizational filler".

 

But your scenario probably has a feasible exit strategy: deadline (or earlier) trades of the suddenly expendable pieces. Note, this is not the same as the strategy of signing guys with the express purpose to flip them.

 

Would be a nice problem to have, wouldn't it?

 

 

I should have caught the implication that you were thinking of minor league filler as opposed to major league filler. Not that there's much distinction between the two for the Twins.

 

I'm interested in moving any and all expendable vets. I guess I don't care if they were expressly signed to be flipped or not. I'd like the idea of my GM playing the market with those ulterior motives though.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

Prospects are not a financial risk. You need to invest when the potential return is greatest. It is not that we should not sign long term deals with FAs, but that we need to make sure that the years of greatest productivity are when the rest of the team is ready to compete for a title.

[Mike Sixel]

And they have over 70MM available to spend right now...what is the financial risk?

 

and why, why do they NEED to be of greatest productivity? Why not just make the team better if they can afford to?

[S.]

And if you wait until a trade deadline to try to add your key pieces when the rest of the team is ready to compete for a title, what happens when the pieces you need aren't available? Or how about when the asking price for those key pieces are other key pieces on our team (and they would be, if you're talking about getting a top tier pitcher at a trade deadline)?

[nicksaviking]

There is a good post at MLB Rumors with this graph. Worth a read.

 

MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

 

http://rotoauthority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515b9a69e2019b00bce92b970d-500wi

 

 

That was pretty good but I liked the Fangraphs one better: The New National TV Contracts And 2014 Payrolls | FanGraphs Baseball

 

The MLBTR one seems to be using all future commitments, regarless of how many years existing contracts are spread out across. In that sense it implies that the Twins don't have much wiggle room this year because Mauer still has $115M left on his deal and the Twins highest payroll was around $120M. That doesn't show the true relationship as that the Twins only have about $60M committed to 2014 and to get back to that payroll they would be able to double their current figure. (Obvisously they won't, just stating parameters of these two data sets)

[Major League Ready]

why is that the question? Are most contracts worth it? The questions should be about what you can afford, not if it is worth it every year of the deal. Remember when everyone said Hunter would not be worth it in Anaheim?

 

This is EXACTLY the question. Let's say we go out and get Ellsbury, Santana, and Jemenz. Ellsbury could be injury prone or simply play at a substandard level from day 1 (see Hamilton/Upton/Bourn) and have a negligible WAR the last couple years of their contracts. Jemenez could easily regress to the 5+ ERA pitcher he was in 2012 and Santana could do the same, especially as they age. Now you have over $80M/year in 2017-18 (including Mauer) tied up in guys who in all likelihood are no longer performing anywhere near an elite level. While I concede it is possible they could all still play at a high level at 35, the odds are much better that they regress, are injured or decline substantially as they age.

 

I think this is what DieHard is suggesting. The FA signings and other transaction should reflect where the team is in the development/rebuild cycle.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

And they have over 70MM available to spend right now...what is the financial risk?

 

and why, why do they NEED to be of greatest productivity? Why not just make the team better if they can afford to?

 

So go drop 100M over 5 years on a guy right now. Sure he wins 20 for a .500 team next year, then sees his productivity wane when Sano, Buxton, et al are peaking. So when the team really needs to invest in a top arm, we have 20M a year wrapped up in a has been.

[S.]

And when Sano, Buxton, et al are peaking, the FA market might be trash. We might go spend 100M over 5 years on a guy who is a flop from day 1. We might still have the worst rotation in baseball and investing in a top arm might only bring us from 70 to 75 wins. Sano, Buxton, et al might not all peak at the same time. Hell, Sano, Buxton, et al might (and the"et al" part probably won't) all pan out to be good major league players.

 

edit:

 

I dont mean to be rude and I certainly can appreciate the optimism about our system producing a bunch of successful players, but you're constructing a hypothetical situation where all possible stars are going to align, and I dont see that as a reasonable way to plan for the future. In order for that to work, all of our prospects in the minors need to pan out, they all need to peak in the same general time frame, FA players we need to fill any holes we have will need to be available during said time frame, and then we need to be able to sign them all. I guess I just don't see any reason why we couldn't also be signing good players now, especially since our payroll obligations are only going to continue to go down based on our current roster. I'm not saying go out and throw around a bunch of 5/100+ contracts, but going after a couple decent to good pitchers now is not going to hamstring us in 3 or 4 years on it's own.

[cmb0252]

I'm all for the Twins spending money but this FA group (especially the pitching side) is garbage. I rather the front office be creative with trying to fix things than just throwing money at it.

[ashbury]

It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.

 

Terry may believe you need a MnPASS to ride on 94.

[diehardtwinsfan]

This is EXACTLY the question. Let's say we go out and get Ellsbury, Santana, and Jemenz. Ellsbury could be injury prone or simply play at a substandard level from day 1 (see Hamilton/Upton/Bourn) and have a negligible WAR the last couple years of their contracts. Jemenez could easily regress to the 5+ ERA pitcher he was in 2012 and Santana could do the same, especially as they age. Now you have over $80M/year in 2017-18 (including Mauer) tied up in guys who in all likelihood are no longer performing anywhere near an elite level. While I concede it is possible they could all still play at a high level at 35, the odds are much better that they regress, are injured or decline substantially as they age.

 

I think this is what DieHard is suggesting. The FA signings and other transaction should reflect where the team is in the development/rebuild cycle.

 

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. Most of those really big FA contracts aren't hunter. They are Kevin Brown type, or the Johan Santana type that does very well in the first couple of years but hamstrings the team later on. There is a time where they make sense, and a time where they most definitely do not make sense. Simply signing guys b/c you have the money is a long term recipie to have a bunch of aging under performing contracts on your plate that you cannot get rid of... Smart, targeted signings when you are one or two holes away from a contender is a completely different case. And yes, as you stated, the odds are not in favor of Ellsbury, Jiminez, and Santana all performing well in the later part of their contracts.

 

Ellsbury - I'm not sure why he keeps getting bandied around. His OPS was not very good at all this year. His game is speed and that doesn't typically age well, and our OF is already crowded in the short term and long term. Why his name keeps getting brought up here is beyond me. He's a terrible fit, and an expensive one at that.

 

Santana- fits a position of need. Has a history that indicates durability issues. Is this the type of guy you target knowing that when the offense on this team gets cemented, he could be on the DL with his second TJ surgery, except that he's getting paid 17M/year and that hamstrings your ability to replace him.

 

Jiminez - He's just inconsistent. Talent is there, but the results don't always show. Also going to be expensive.

 

I'm all for FA signings, and I honestly think Ryan is too (though he's a bit more risk averse), but in terms of where this team was last year, spending a ton of money makes little sense. The next wave is a lot closer and looks a lot more promising right now, so perhaps it's time to make a plunge, but even then tying up lots of dollars and years isn't smart. Getting that pitching is going to make a lot more sense when the hitting is ready to compete. The only real problem I see is that there are only 3 spots worth filling in 2015 (Meyer, May, and Gibson) and that assumes no one regresses. They will have to make a plunge at one point. The question is when.

[Willihammer]

It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.

 

Maybe Ryan prefers the longer way because he's a hopeless romantic?

 

http://i.imgur.com/qUuYXBs.jpg?1

[Major League Ready]

The lack of starting pitching in the upper levels of the minor league system is a glaring hole in terms of contending. However, we need to be realistic. We are basically where KC was 3-4 years ago. There is no way this team competes with Detroit until and unless most of the group including Dozier/Arcia/Pinto/Sano/Buxton/Rosario. That is going to be 2016 best case scenario and probably 2017. Spending another 60-70M in free agency is not going to make us a contender until then.

 

If you agree with this premise, I think the FA SP strategy should be a very aggressive approach with the best FA SPs that can be signed to 3 years or less. This will position us nicely from a budgetary position. We will be in a great position to add a top line FA starter in 2016 or 2017. We will also be positioned to utilize the Ray’s early extension strategy for some of our top prospects.

 

This will help but Gibson and Meyer really need to reach their potential. There are a couple other guys who might contribute by then but the odds are longer on them. There are also other possibilities to produce a front of the rotation starter by 2017. I would expect an all out effort if this were the final piece in contending. For starters, we could get a college pitcher with the #5 pick that could be that guy. I could see the FO being more aggressive with an international signing if we were close to contending. Another option, given the depth of our system, might be to trade one of two of our current top prospects not named Buxton or Sano once they have become established for ML ready pitching.

 

We should all pray for guys like Santana, Walker, Kepler, Polanco, etc reach their potential. They could be used as trade bait or replacements to our proven players. In either scenario, trading them could be the source of more pitching.

[The Wise One]

I agree, but will play devil's advocate for a moment. What if Gibson, Hendriks, Meyer and May had all had the phenominal seasons we were hoping for? Then Correa and Pelfrey would have been blocking them. Pre-season, it wasn't a sure thing all would have production/injury concerns.

 

First off the big if had odds on it about like buying one ticket for 4 big lotteries and winning them all. Scouting and statistics could tell you that was not going to happen.

[Jim H]

I expect the Twins to sign a couple of free agent pitchers this year, but for them to have much of an impact, the Twins players that are coming back have to play better than they did this year. Hell, the pitchers the Twins sign will probably have to pitch better than they did this year, to have any positive impact. That is if we are talking about guys like Hughes and Baker and actually a large part of the free agent class.

 

That is the point of the no shortcuts comment. The current Twins have to play better, or be replaced by minor leaguers who play better. The free agent pitchers who are available have either been bad, hurt or (because there are so few of them) will be insanely expensive. You might get lucky in the free agent market, but since the top of the market as profiled by Nick, had 3 guys who pitched no better than Corrieia this year, you probably won't.

 

Again, I expect the Twins to sign a couple of guys. I actually hope they are short term contracts, unless the Twins actually manage to snag a Tanaka or maybe E. Santana. If they happen to be good, or recovered from their injuries, well then resign them. Most of the long term contracts will be bad investments like they always have been.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That is going to be 2016 best case scenario and probably 2017.

 

Huh. So best case scenario, we're done rebuilding in year 5 or 6? And that's assuming most of our top prospects today actually pan out? Is that really the best plan?

 

We will be in a great position to add a top line FA starter in 2016 or 2017.

 

And what if there are no top line FA starters available in 2016 or 2017? What if the best available then is a Barry Zito type? With as barren as we are for starting pitching, basically above rookie- and A-level ball, I'd rather be on the hunt now -- not forcing a signing, but definitely looking, identifying our best bets to produce over the contract, and bidding competitively within the ample budget room we have over the next 5 years.

[Willihammer]

This talk about saving for when the "new core" is ready - I think a reminder is in order.

 

http://twinsdaily.com/2291-minnesota-twins-roster-payroll-2014.html

 

There is, by my count, one player guaranteed money after 2014.

 

The Twins could hand out a 100m FA contract this offseason, another one in 2015 and another after that until Mauer's contract expires (after which point they could hand out another one),pay arbitration raises to Sano, Buxton, and the handful of other specs who don't flame out, and still have money left over. They are wide @#$^@#$^ open.

[Nick Nelson]

I guarantee perspectives change when you actually become the person responsible for a 100M budget.

What about when your product is failing, and you are maybe 1-2 more bad years from losing your job? Personally, I might be more inclined to take advantage of that 100M budget.

[Kwak]

What about when your product is failing, and you are maybe 1-2 more bad years from losing your job? Personally, I might be more inclined to take advantage of that 100M budget.

 

My view--he's doing just as the executive committee wants and is in no danger. Ninety-plus losses means draft early in Jun. I wish I had a dollar for every time I read about the "difficulty" of finding talent when selecting 20-something. This way, they select in the top ten, sometimes even top five! Losing ninety?--it's not as if the Twins would threaten Detroit soon anyway. Fans? We exist to buy tickets, concessions, and merchandise. Several poor seasons and most will be thrilled to be drilled in the first round of the playoffs.

[TheLeviathan]

What about when your product is failing, and you are maybe 1-2 more bad years from losing your job? Personally, I might be more inclined to take advantage of that 100M budget.

 

Especially since that 100M budget could disappear quickly if you don't.