Article: These Ain't Your Old Twins

[Willihammer]

You know, there's a new draft every year. These kids don't stop coming. So I see little reason to meticulously plan every single move around hitting the (distant) peak years of a couple of guys taken in 2009-2012 who haven't even swung at an MLB pitch yet.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You know, there's a new draft every year. These kids don't stop coming. So I see little reason to meticulously plan every single move around hitting the (distant) peak years of a couple of guys taken in 2009-2012 who haven't even swung at an MLB pitch yet.

 

It's not meticulously planning every move, it's the exact opposite... Improving consistently each year and not locking yourself into a situation where you need players and don't have money to adapt to new situations.

 

I want to see the Twins stay good for a very long time and I believe a steady, incremental approach to free agency is the way to get there.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I wasn't against signing Garza, though it may have come off that way. I'm mostly positive on the Nolasco signing as a whole.

 

My point is that it's a mistake to sign both in the same offseason when you're coming off a 66 win season. Odds are that they're both in a decline phase at the same time while eating $30m a season. And in this situation, that's probably the same period the current Twins farm is coming into its own.

We're probably mostly in agreement, then. But when do you think the current Twins farm realistically comes into its own? Even if you think 3 years (although most of our farm pitchers seem further away than that), at that point Nolasco will have 1/12 left and Garza would have 2/32, and none of our young studs will even be arb eligible.

 

Also, performance-wise, while "decline phase" is as good as we can get for predicting averages, it varies a ton by individual pitchers. While I don't expect either to be 100% of the pitcher they are today in 4 years, it's probably not likely that they both follow the same pattern. Garza could struggle in 2014 but rebound, Nolasco could do it in 2015 and be toast, etc. Again, look at Lackey, Burnett, Pavano, etc. -- not that comebacks are likely, but decline isn't always linear and predictable for individuals.

 

The Twins need to concern themselves with adding talent -- both durability and upside. The next 5 years for the Twins are about as clear as an MLB team can get in terms of contractual commitments, this side of the Astros and Marlins. No need to get cute about synching payroll and performance phases.

[Willihammer]

It's not meticulously planning every move, it's the exact opposite... Improving consistently each year and not locking yourself into a situation where you need players and don't have money to adapt to new situations.

 

I want to see the Twins stay good for a very long time and I believe a steady, incremental approach to free agency is the way to get there.

 

Sounded to me like you were budgeting for 2017 already. I'd much rather the Twins blow their wad on FA every year to put the best product possible out there in case they pull another 1991 Twins and surprise everyone.

 

The way you sustain long term success is by not blowing 1st and 2nd round picks on your Trevor Plouffe, Chris Parmelee types. No team sent themselves into a tailspin by committing one lousy 5 year contract to a player 3 years ago.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, performance-wise, while "decline phase" is as good as we can get for predicting averages, it varies a ton by individual pitchers. While I don't expect either to be 100% of the pitcher they are today in 4 years, it's probably not likely that they both follow the same pattern. Garza could struggle in 2014 but rebound, Nolasco could do it in 2015 and be toast, etc. Again, look at Lackey, Burnett, Pavano, etc. -- not that comebacks are likely, but decline isn't always linear and predictable for individuals.

 

Absolutely, but if you play the averages and keep typical player models in mind when you acquire guys, you'll probably end up taking on fewer bad contracts and you'll almost certainly take on fewer of them at one time.

[johnnydakota]

Twins need to improve to keep attendance from dropping. Say it drops below 2 million which is 700,000 less than 2013 that would mean what $30 million less in revenues?

 

100,000=5 million in ticket sales ,merchandice and concessions

[Brock Beauchamp]

Sounded to me like you were budgeting for 2017 already. I'd much rather the Twins blow their wad on FA every year to put the best product possible out there in case they pull another 1991 Twins and surprise everyone.

 

The way you sustain long term success is by not blowing 1st and 2nd round picks on your Trevor Plouffe, Chris Parmelee types. No team sent themselves into a tailspin by committing one lousy 5 year contract to a player 3 years ago.

 

Not budgeting for 2017, I'm advocating giving the franchise the ability to adapt to new situations as they arise. There's a big difference in those two ways of looking at the situation.

 

Obviously, drafting is important for every team... But that's another argument entirely and even the best scouting and analysis departments churn out clunker draft picks.

 

I agree that every team should be open to the idea of being pleasantly surprised by performance and making a short-term run at the ring... Which is why I wanted a heck of a lot more than Kevin Correia and Mike Pelfrey last offseason, but not at the expense of being eternally against your budget wall. That seems like a good way to perpetuate mediocrity as you remove virtually all flexibility to adapt on the fly. It's a short-sighted outlook that damages your ability to maintain long-term, sustained success.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sounded to me like you were budgeting for 2017 already. I'd much rather the Twins blow their wad on FA every year to put the best product possible out there in case they pull another 1991 Twins and surprise everyone.

I wouldn't say "blow their wad on FA every year" but aggressiveness when you see players you like is a good thing. And yes, under that principle they could afford another pitcher this offseason -- it's one of the perks of being cheap/inactive so long. Seriously, this team hasn't taken on any contracts of note since Mauer in 2010, and before him, it was Morneau, Nathan, and Cuddyer in 2008. That's 4-6 years of subtracting players and salaries.

[goulik]

Not budgeting for 2017, I'm advocating giving the franchise the ability to adapt to new situations as they arise. There's a big difference in those two ways of looking at the situation.

 

Obviously, drafting is important for every team... But that's another argument entirely and even the best scouting and analysis departments churn out clunker draft picks.

 

I agree that every team should be open to the idea of being pleasantly surprised by performance and making a short-term run at the ring... Which is why I wanted a heck of a lot more than Kevin Correia and Mike Pelfrey last offseason, but not at the expense of being eternally against your budget wall. That seems like a good way to perpetuate mediocrity as you remove virtually all flexibility to adapt on the fly. It's a short-sighted outlook that damages your ability to maintain long-term, sustained success.

 

I agree with the idea of giving the franchise the ability to adapt to new situations as they arise. I agree that we need to keep the budget flexible so that we can add free agents down the road. 30 million to Nolasco/Garza + Joe Mauer = 53 Million. The rest of the expensive players will be off the roster leaving you with 11-15 million tied to low salary young players at 500k salaries and 50-60 million for those other free agents you want to sign. I don't see the concern.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

What happens if they need a 30 year old version of Garza in 2016 but have already committed $16m to a 33 year old version of that player?

 

Good free agents are available every offseason. There's no reason to stack the deck with 30 year olds in 2013, players that will be 33-34 year olds in 2016 when the bulk of the Twins' young players should be coming into their own.

 

I think too many fans have knee-jerk reactions to signings and don't stop to think of the repercussions of fielding an 85 win team in the here and now instead of considering the potential to have $20m on hand in 2-4 years to push the team into 100 win territory as the farm matures into a solid MLB core.

exactly why I really like (the potential of) the Hughes signing, low commitment high upside, and should be an improvement over the current pitching staff. Should be number 2 on the staff, could be number 1.

[Major League Ready]

It's not meticulously planning every move, it's the exact opposite... Improving consistently each year and not locking yourself into a situation where you need players and don't have money to adapt to new situations.

 

I want to see the Twins stay good for a very long time and I believe a steady, incremental approach to free agency is the way to get there.

 

Thank you for this last series of posts. I just don't have the energy to explain these things over and over. I do it for a living so it is not fun to do it here. Fans think in terms of now and there desire to have stars on their teams. You would think the situation with players like A-Rod, Pujlos, Hamilton, Teixeria, Howard, and many free agent SPs who have been train wrecks would slow this roll. The top market teams can afford to have several of them fail and have the Twins budget left over. You would think what the As and Rays have done would leave an impression as to the best practices for a mid market team but fans want big names. Just look how often fans want us to sign guys because they used to be good. And, somehow people understand the cost associated with long-term contracts is that the player likely will significantly underperform the contract in the final years. Yet, the reality that the cost of adding a few wins now while there is no hope of contending will be the inability to pay for additional talent when it will count is somehow lost.

 

GMs and others who have P&L responsibility have an entirely different way of viewing these things. It is a relatively rare skill set but I am saying nothing you don't already know.

 

Thanks for participating.

[Guest USAFChief]

Thank you for this last series of posts. I just don't have the energy to explain these things over and over. I do it for a living so it is not fun to do it here. Fans think in terms of now and there desire to have stars on their teams. You would think the situation with players like A-Rod, Pujlos, Hamilton, Teixeria, Howard, and many free agent SPs who have been train wrecks would slow this roll. The top market teams can afford to have several of them fail and have the Twins budget left over. You would think what the As and Rays have done would leave an impression as to the best practices for a mid market team but fans want big names. Just look how often fans want us to sign guys because they used to be good. And, somehow people understand the cost associated with long-term contracts is that the player likely will significantly underperform the contract in the final years. Yet, the reality that the cost of adding a few wins now while there is no hope of contending will be the inability to pay for additional talent when it will count is somehow lost.

 

GMs and others who have P&L responsibility have an entirely different way of viewing these things. It is a relatively rare skill set but I am saying nothing you don't already know.

 

Thanks for participating.

You explain things over and over for a living?

[johnnydakota]

What happens if they need a 30 year old version of Garza in 2016 but have already committed $16m to a 33 year old version of that player?

 

Good free agents are available every offseason. There's no reason to stack the deck with 30 year olds in 2013, players that will be 33-34 year olds in 2016 when the bulk of the Twins' young players should be coming into their own.

 

I think too many fans have knee-jerk reactions to signings and don't stop to think of the repercussions of fielding an 85 win team in the here and now instead of considering the potential to have $20m on hand in 2-4 years to push the team into 100 win territory as the farm matures into a solid MLB core.

 

Then why not use some of that money to improve the team now on 1 or 2 year contracts? Couldnt we improve the team by adding solid defense at 3b,even if it was only a part time player, couldnt we add an outfielder or catcher on a short contract, or maybe stacking our roster with a couple more relievers?

 

These players would use the money this year , but come off the books in time to use when we expect to compete , or sooner if we flip them mid season as trading chips for prospects?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Then why not use some of that money to improve the team now on 1 or 2 year contracts? Couldnt we improve the team by adding solid defense at 3b,even if it was only a part time player, couldnt we add an outfielder or catcher on a short contract, or maybe stacking our roster with a couple more relievers?

 

These players would use the money this year , but come off the books in time to use when we expect to compete , or sooner if we flip them mid season as trading chips for prospects?

 

Absolutely. I'm not giving Ryan a pass for last offseason. I hated it as much as anybody.

 

So far, he's done pretty well this offseason but I hope he's not done. I'd like to see them try to move a bullpen arm or two and clear room for Diamond/Worley/Deduno/Hendriks, pick up a veteran catcher, and explore another option at third base.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree with the idea of giving the franchise the ability to adapt to new situations as they arise. I agree that we need to keep the budget flexible so that we can add free agents down the road. 30 million to Nolasco/Garza + Joe Mauer = 53 Million. The rest of the expensive players will be off the roster leaving you with 11-15 million tied to low salary young players at 500k salaries and 50-60 million for those other free agents you want to sign. I don't see the concern.

 

I can guarantee you that in the next 2-3 seasons, the Twins are going to need to fill holes with players... And I don't know about you, but I've seen enough Mike Pelfreys, Ramon Ortizes, and Jason Marquis to fill a lifetime.

 

When the time comes to start putting the finishing touches on the roster around Buxton and Sano, I want Ryan to have a free agency floor of Josh Willingham and a ceiling of... Well, no ceiling.

 

It's not reasonable to expect every youngster to develop. A couple are going to fail... And you're going to want at least $6-10m at each position to fill it with a competent player. No more of this $1m "fill the hole with a player who has no business being on a MLB roster" crap.

 

And that takes money. Again, I just don't understand the rush. The Twins are not going to be legitimate contenders without the farm and the farm ain't ready yet. That doesn't mean Ryan should have sat on his hands like he did last offseason but it also doesn't mean he should go out and spend money like Rob Ford at a Hookers & Blow convention just because he has money.

[70charger]

You explain things over and over for a living?

 

Must be a teacher.

 

Right?

[Willihammer]

Fans think in terms of now and there desire to have stars on their teams. You would think the situation with players like A-Rod, Pujlos, Hamilton, Teixeria, Howard, and many free agent SPs who have been train wrecks would slow this roll.

 

Not only is this a cherry picked group of FAs but I don't think these players have been as bad as you think.

 

Arod? 21.5 WARs since 2008.

 

Pujols? 6.4 in 2 years.

 

Teixeira? 16.3 in 5.

 

And for every one of these less than stellar values, I can point to a Manny Ramirez, CC Sabathia, CJ Wilson, Adrian Beltre who are workring out splendidly.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Arod? 21.5 WARs since 2008.

 

Pujols? 6.4 in 2 years.

 

Teixeira? 16.3 in 5.

 

And for every one of these less than stellar values, I can point to a Manny Ramirez, CC Sabathia, CJ Wilson, Adrian Beltre who are workring out splendidly.

 

Past two seasons, WAR and money earned:

 

A-Rod: 2.6 WAR, $57m (!)

 

Teixeira: 3.7 WAR, $45m

 

Pujols is still early in the contract but has scuffled badly by his standards, which does not bode well for the second half of the contract.

 

No one is arguing that these players were bad signings in the first 2-3 years of their deals. What kills you is the second half of the contract, as illustrated by A-Rod and Teixeira's dollars per win value, which is atrocious.

 

Beltre still has two years left on his deal while Wilson has three left. Hey, they may provide good value all the way through their contracts... But they probably won't.

 

CC Sabathia is a rubber-armed freak. I wouldn't use him as a baseline for anything... I thought the chubby bastard would have broken down already but he's still chugging along, throwing solid season after solid season.

[thetank]

Then why not use some of that money to improve the team now on 1 or 2 year contracts? Couldnt we improve the team by adding solid defense at 3b,even if it was only a part time player, couldnt we add an outfielder or catcher on a short contract, or maybe stacking our roster with a couple more relievers?

 

These players would use the money this year , but come off the books in time to use when we expect to compete , or sooner if we flip them mid season as trading chips for prospects?

 

There has been some years where there haven't been any good FA contracts that were longer than one year. If Nolasco and Hughes do poorly in 2014 and 2015 this could be a long spell of 90 loss seasons. The offense needs to score 100 more runs and the pitching needs to give up 100 less runs to get to 85 wins. That is likely a couple of years away on the offense side.

[Willihammer]

No one is arguing that these players were bad signings in the first 2-3 years of their deals. What kills you is the second half of the contract, as illustrated by A-Rod and Teixeira's dollars per win value, which is atrocious.

 

We could go round and round. The bottom line is, you need superstars to win championships. Superstars don't sign 2-3 year contracts. The Twins might have a couple coming up the pipeline, they might not. What's far more certain IMO is that Tanaka, Garza, Santana, or Cano will be a superstar or something very close to one next season. Whereas Buxton could just as easily be the next Colby Lewis - good, but not quite the guy we were hoping for. And Sano could be the next Pedro Alvarez. Then there will have been no point giving 80% in 2014-2015, especially if the Twins wind up finishing 4-5 games out of a wildcard spot.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We could go round and round. The bottom line is, you need superstars to win championships. Superstars don't sign 2-3 year contracts. The Twins might have a couple coming up the pipeline, they might not. What's far more certain IMO is that Tanaka, Garza, Santana, or Cano will be a superstar or something very close to one next season. Whereas Buxton could just as easily be the next Colby Lewis - good, but not quite the guy we were hoping for. And Sano could be the next Pedro Alvarez. Then there will have been no point giving 80% in 2014-2015, especially if the Twins wind up finishing 4-5 games out of a wildcard spot.

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping the Twins from picking up a superstar midseason if they're surprised by a playoff run and need a piece for a push toward the playoffs.

 

On the other hand, you can pretty much be sure that if they sign someone to a 5+ year deal right now, that player is going to be some degree of mediocre or bad by the time the farm is peaking.

 

And you just illustrated why I think incremental FA signings are the right course of action. What happens if Buxton gets injured or falls on his face but Sano is good? Wouldn't it be nice to have $10m a year to sign the next Michael Bourn and give Sano/Mauer a complementary player in the lineup? Sure, he won't be Byron Buxton but he won't be Darin Mastroianni, either.

 

Given your strategy, that's not possible. Any failure on the farm cannot be fixed through any measure other than trade because there is no payroll flexibility to shift assets on the fly.

[Willihammer]

And you just illustrated why I think incremental FA signings are the right course of action. What happens if Buxton gets injured or falls on his face but Sano is good?

 

You cross that bridge if/when you get to it. I don't believe this contingency should have any bearing on the 2014 plans, since that's not yet happened.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You would think the situation with players like A-Rod, Pujlos, Hamilton, Teixeria, Howard, and many free agent SPs who have been train wrecks would slow this roll.

The players you listed signed for $125 mil - $275 mil. I think you're safely in the consensus here by opposing those deals for the 2014 Twins.

 

More likely, folks here have been advocating one additional 4/60 or 5/75 type deal. A $15 mil AAV would have ranked somewhere around #53 in MLB for 2013. I don't think having two of those on the Twins (Mauer + the new acquisition) would bankrupt or handcuff us, given our paucity of other payroll commitments for the next 5 years.

 

As always, there are plenty of other arguments against such a contract, but this ain't one of them.

[goulik]

Glancing at the R&P page I noticed something that should relieve Brock a little... Nolasco has a $250,000 buyout each year. We will not have to be tied to him if he becomes a declining player...

[ashbury]

Glancing at the R&P page I noticed something that should relieve Brock a little... Nolasco has a $250,000 buyout each year. We will not have to be tied to him if he becomes a declining player...

 

That can't be right; must be an artifact of how the spreadsheet was set up, dividing $1M by 4 for some reason. Everything else I've read has it as a $1M buyout for the fifth year.

[goulik]

That can't be right; must be an artifact of how the spreadsheet was set up, dividing $1M by 4 for some reason. Everything else I've read has it as a $1M buyout for the fifth year.

That would definitely make more sense. Dang it Jeremy, I trusted you.

[johnnydakota]

I don't disagree that there's still payroll room now. That said, I'm simply not all that in love with a lot of the remaining FA pitchers this year. I liked Kazmir's potential, but he's gone now. I think Arroyo's a significant overpay risk, but for the right price, he'd be fine. A trade for someone that has a contract his team wants to get rid of might be the best shot at further improvements to the rotation. I'm good with spending some money on a catcher.

 

I just don't think you spend excessive money for someone you really don't think will be worth it and that's how I feel about most of the guys at the top of the FA list right now. I'd make sure I've got room to add significant payroll at mid-season or, more importantly, next off-season.

 

Couldnt we add a couple of contracts on 2-3 years , that we would flip come july to help continue to build a farm system? The money is there to use, If we would bank some of that love for the future It wouldnt bother me , but like most government jobs , if you dont use it you lose it. So lets target a couple of players in the mid tier range that we can flip for prospects

[Major League Ready]

The players you listed signed for $125 mil - $275 mil. I think you're safely in the consensus here by opposing those deals for the 2014 Twins.

 

More likely, folks here have been advocating one additional 4/60 or 5/75 type deal. A $15 mil AAV would have ranked somewhere around #53 in MLB for 2013. I don't think having two of those on the Twins (Mauer + the new acquisition) would bankrupt or handcuff us, given our paucity of other payroll commitments for the next 5 years.

 

As always, there are plenty of other arguments against such a contract, but this ain't one of them.

 

You are segmenting the point and then interpreting it to meet your needs. No these are not parallel examples. I was responding to a whole series of posts made by Brock about long-term commitments or trading for players with 2 years of control left at this stage of rebuilding. Everyone is in a big hurry to get mediocre and are willing to make moves that are likely to be impediments when this team is ready to contend. In the case of trading assets like Rosario for short-term contribution is absolutely certain to be detrimental when our top prospects should be contributing to this team contending. That is the appropriate context. I used extreme examples to amplify the point. Do you think Jimenez is less risky? I guess I could have used BJ Upton if you want 5/75 examples. His OPS last year was .557. How about Edwin Jackson? BTW ... Epstein admitted in an interview with ESPN that move was premature.

 

$15M is roughly 12% of the Twins max budget. These 5/75 players are still going to be in decline when this team is ready to compete and $15M/year is still a very significant portion of this team’s payroll.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess I have no idea why you'd bring up $125+ mil contracts then. No one's denying there's risk involved in a free agent contract, and that risk increases as the money increases.

 

However, the Twins are actually in an interesting position in regards to such risk (money only, not trading prospects). Assuming they can afford $100 mil in player salaries, they are still ~$20 million under that budget for 2014, and ~$40+ million under for 2015-2018.

 

Now, I certainly understand the argument that the 2014 Twins don't need another pitcher, as such a pitcher could be "wasted" on two non-competitive seasons. Waiting to add that pitcher in 2016 could mean he's joining an instantly competitive team, and could effectively delay the "decline phase" of that investment by a couple seasons.

 

But, a 5/75 contract signed now will expire before any of our young players see significant salary increases. If we wait 2 years to sign that pitcher, he might participate in more legitimately competitive seasons, but the last few years of his deal -- when he will be in decline phase and all that -- will overlap with years when Sano, Buxton, etc. could be due significant raises. We've got the payroll the next 5 years; beyond that, I'm not so sure. That, to me, seems more significant than the risk of a FA pitcher's "decline phase" not syncing perfectly with our prospect's breakout years.

 

It's also sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By avoiding that 5/75 pitcher now because we're not competitive, we are helping ensure that we won't be competitive. I don't like the idea that 4-5 years is the minimum length of a rebuild, not when a team has strong revenue and a lack of contractual commitments like the Twins do.

 

To sum up, I don't mean to imply that we HAVE to add such a pitcher now, but we should definitely be checking them out, and if we find a guy we like, bid competitively. Don't rest on the laurels or mild rotation upgrades like Nolasco and Hughes, or shy away because you're chasing some success cycle perfection.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But, a 5/75 contract signed now will expire before any of our young players see significant salary increases. If we wait 2 years to sign that pitcher, he might participate in more legitimately competitive seasons, but the last few years of his deal -- when he will be in decline phase and all that -- will overlap with years when Sano, Buxton, etc. could be due significant raises. We've got the payroll the next 5 years; beyond that, I'm not so sure. That, to me, seems more significant than the risk of a FA pitcher's "decline phase" not syncing perfectly with our prospect's breakout years.

 

By the time Buxton and Sano are due large raises, Joe Mauer's contract comes off the books.

 

That's why incremental signings are a good idea. You constantly have guys coming off the books, freeing up money to sign more players.