Article: Shortcuts

[TheLeviathan]

Fans will show up if they win. Therefore, the best spending policies are those that promote this highest probability of putting a winning team on the field.

 

We also should not complain about inability to win in the post season and then suggest they should appease the fans. Giving up draft picks or trading good prospects diminish the future for the sake a putting an average team on the field now. The odds of any of the trades an acqusitions suggested producing a team that can beat Detroit are remote. And they get even more remote if the goal is to go on and beat the Red Sox / Rangers / Athletics, and extremely remote to then beat the Dodgers or Cardinals.

 

For all the bluster you are still missing the point. Yes, fans will show for wins. But in the meantime the ticket purchasing dwindles, which hits revenues hard, which drops payroll, which makes supplementing or retaining players in the future more difficult, which makes sustaining a winning team more difficult.

 

investment in FA now is an investment in maintaining future revenues. No one is talking trades or band aids, that's a scarecrow tht has been pointed out several times already.

[Major League Ready]

Why are we using $75 million as the benchmark? The Twins aren't just conservative on those -- in fact, I doubt they've ever even considered or made such an offer. They've never topped $21 million total / $7 mil AAV for an outside free agent ($10 million total / $5 mil AAV for pitchers). I'd be delighted if they simply topped those numbers and got some quality assets for it this offseason.

 

If you include Asian/Cuban free agent signings, only two franchises (Pittsburgh and San Diego) have historically given less to their biggest outside free agent signing, although Pittsburgh's actually had a higher AAV (Russell Martin).

 

Pittsburgh also traded for Wandy Rodriguez and picked up a higher AAV on his remaining deal than the Twins ever have, and San Diego extended Carlos Quentin to a deal even greater than Willingham's (both total and AAV) months after trading for him.

 

The Astros and Marlins are cheaper at the moment, but historically, overall, the Twins are probably the most conservative at handing out ANY outside free agent money, much less $75 million.

 

You have a point. As a matter of fact, I agree and have advocated signing some players that will cost nearly twice as much as the Willingham contract. However, we should keep in mind that it was not long ago the Twins were among the lowest revenue teams. You can't compare their current spending ability historically. Let's see what they do this year.

[Riverbrian]

I really wish that 50-52 percent figure wouldn't have been put out to the public.

 

I like the thought of fluid payroll. Meaning higher payroll when we have players worth retaining and lower payroll when we don't.

 

I want payroll to reflect the context of the team and not some 50-52 percent thing.

 

With that said... I continue to not care much about the actual payroll number. I only care about players who play to win and do. Those players come at a wide range of salaries and we don't have enough of them right now... obviously.

[JB_Iowa]

I really wish that 50-52 percent figure wouldn't have been put out to the public.

 

I like the thought of fluid payroll. Meaning higher payroll when we have players worth retaining and lower payroll when we don't.

 

I want payroll to reflect the context of the team and not some 50-52 percent thing.

 

With that said... I continue to not care much about the actual payroll number. I only care about players who play to win and do. Those players come at a wide range of salaries and we don't have enough of them right now... obviously.

 

I like the idea of a fluid payroll, too ... but ONLY if it means that it is fluid both ABOVE and BELOW the 50%-52% mark.

 

There are times when a team has all young players and the payroll should be less. But there are also times when many players are more mature in their careers and payroll should be more and where exceeding the 52% mark, even by a substantial margin, to bring in a player or two to "put them over the top" would seem rational.

 

I just haven't seen any evidence that the Twins are willing to do this. So, if they are going to say 50%-52%, I want to see them using it to put the best product they can on the field.

[goulik]

I am confident without looking at numbers that the Twins current 52% has ever been nearly this far above current payroll. This means TR is in unprecedented territory as far as how much money he has to spend. I also believe from quotes I have read that the Pohlads will be upset if he does not spend significantly more than on last years FA market. How do we prejudge what someone will do when put in a completely different place than ever before? I am confident Willingham's record contract will go down in flames this offseason, but for who and how many guys?

If that doesn't happen, attendance will plummet and so will profits. I am also convinced "they" have had Econ 101,201,301,and 401! They have to spend. We know it but more importantly, they know it.

[Riverbrian]

I have a question and I don't know the answer.

 

I'm not saying collusion... So... Let's phrase it this way... Does anyone believe there is a professional responsibility to not overpay rediculous amounts on players.

 

Is it possible that if the Twins or any team... Out of desperation... offers Hughes for example... 7 years 150 million... If they hypothetically did that. Would that cause a problem with the rest of the league owners because of what it would do to the salary scale overall. The prices for the rest of the free agent class... Arb cases... All of it.

 

Yes... I understand this is collusion at its core... But... Is it possible that... This is a factor in all, most or a few teams negotiations? It would certainly be in ownership for all teams best interest to not have a loose cannon out there.

[Mike Sixel]

And yet, when Andy McPhail was the GM, he signed players to some of the largest contracts in the majors, even with those low revenues.

[Riverbrian]

I like the idea of a fluid payroll, too ... but ONLY if it means that it is fluid both ABOVE and BELOW the 50%-52% mark.

 

There are times when a team has all young players and the payroll should be less. But there are also times when many players are more mature in their careers and payroll should be more and where exceeding the 52% mark, even by a substantial margin, to bring in a player or two to "put them over the top" would seem rational.

 

I just haven't seen any evidence that the Twins are willing to do this. So, if they are going to say 50%-52%, I want to see them using it to put the best product they can on the field.

 

Me 2... I do hope that the day will come that the Twins will have to exceed that 52% figure for a year or two to retain top talent. I hope they have to and they do.

 

My Problem right now...is that I don't see many players on the roster currently worth spending big money on and I don't see many Free Agents this year worth spending big money on.

 

It's why... Payroll just isn't an issue with me... At this moment in time.

[Major League Ready]

I really wish that 50-52 percent figure wouldn't have been put out to the public.

 

I like the thought of fluid payroll. Meaning higher payroll when we have players worth retaining and lower payroll when we don't.

 

I want payroll to reflect the context of the team and not some 50-52 percent thing.

 

With that said... I continue to not care much about the actual payroll number. I only care about players who play to win and do. Those players come at a wide range of salaries and we don't have enough of them right now... obviously.

 

It is going to take a few years before we will be in a position to exceed the 52% budget for a final piece or two but I could not agree more on spending when we can pinpoint the right final pieces. That might also include trading some of our prospects much like KC did with Shields. Of course, this is not a new concept. Detroit has been in that mode for the last 3 years. I sure hope our core develops and we are in that position by 2017.

[jokin]

It is going to take a few years before we will be in a position to exceed the 52% budget for a final piece or two but I could not agree more on spending when we can pinpoint the right final pieces. That might also include trading some of our prospects much like KC did with Shields. Of course, this is not a new concept. Detroit has been in that mode for the last 3 years. I sure hope our core develops and we are in that position by 2017.

 

Funny, the taxpayers purportedly built TF just so we wouldn't have to wait 4 MORE years.

 

7 years without a serious attempt before then at fielding a competitive team, coupled with no attempt to put in the "final pieces" along the way? Things have changed for this team- it holds a potential near-future value in excess of $1Billion...and produced $215M in revenue even in the midst of yet another dismal lost season. There is absolutely no overhanging financial reason to hold off on "putting the final pieces" in place until the 2017 offseason. There is virtually no risk at attempting to field competitive teams in 2014, '15, '16 by acquiring both long and short-term assets via FA- flipping, non-tendering, QOFing and/or extending them, as each individual merits in the long-term plan, case-by-case.