How Much Can The Twins Spend This Offseason?

Did we all forget about Rob “Lightning in a Bottle” Refsnyder?! Where does he fit into next year’s roster?! Super Utility Man of the Year!!!

If they can get someone to take Sano {or Donaldson) off their hands, they can afford to go after a top tier starter and bump Buxton/Berrios as part of their extensions. 

38 minutes ago, John Bonnes said:

Many of these numbers (especially arbitration) can only be estimated right now. That's why it's "back-of-the-napkin". We're trying to find a decent range of overall payroll. In the interest of transparency...

- Garver is arbitration eligible, so his exact salary will not be know until February, but $3.8M is a decent estimate. It could be lower (maybe $3M?) if he doesn't play the rest of the year, but the Twins haven't placed him on the 60 day IL so I still expect him to come back.

- Per Cot's Baseball Contracts, Polanco is making $5M next year. 

- Sano is guaranteed $9.25M but has a $2.75 million buyout on his club option in 2023. Since that is likely to be exercised in November, the Twins will need to budget $12M on him next year.

- Buxton. No, it's not guaranteed. It's listed in the chart as "arbitration." It's an estimated. If he stays healthy, it would likely be higher than that, but that's a big if.

- Rogers - also listed as "arbitration" above, so yes, $7.5M is a projection.

- Berrios - yes, also lised as "arbitration" and as such is a projection. 

Finally, I'll list one other that others have mentioned and is perhaps the biggest question mark: Maeda and his low guarantee with an enormous incentive clause. You can find details on that on the "Cot's" link above. 

38 minutes ago, John Bonnes said:

Many of these numbers (especially arbitration) can only be estimated right now. That's why it's "back-of-the-napkin". We're trying to find a decent range of overall payroll. In the interest of transparency...

- Garver is arbitration eligible, so his exact salary will not be know until February, but $3.8M is a decent estimate. It could be lower (maybe $3M?) if he doesn't play the rest of the year, but the Twins haven't placed him on the 60 day IL so I still expect him to come back.

- Per Cot's Baseball Contracts, Polanco is making $5M next year. 

- Sano is guaranteed $9.25M but has a $2.75 million buyout on his club option in 2023. Since that is likely to be exercised in November, the Twins will need to budget $12M on him next year.

- Buxton. No, it's not guaranteed. It's listed in the chart as "arbitration." It's an estimated. If he stays healthy, it would likely be higher than that, but that's a big if.

- Rogers - also listed as "arbitration" above, so yes, $7.5M is a projection.

- Berrios - yes, also lised as "arbitration" and as such is a projection. 

Finally, I'll list one other that others have mentioned and is perhaps the biggest question mark: Maeda and his low guarantee with an enormous incentive clause. You can find details on that on the "Cot's" link above. 

John:  Appreciate your clarification on the players I cited in my post.  Good work on your salary observations as things stand right now.  A lot of big decisions for the front office to make.

John and others...do you think it is realistic to expect the Twins to approach both/either Buxton and Berrios about an extension this summer?  So often we hear that players don't want to deal with negotiations while the season is under way.  But should the Twins be approached about a trade for either, I would think they would have to at least run the flag up the pole to see if an extension is possible.  If the answer is no, expect they would listen to offers.  If the answer is yes, would hope they proceed to get it done.

When healthy this team may be proving that they aren't so far away that a retooling is possible, perhaps as soon as next year.  Sure would make sense to lock in their two best players.

I just want to point out that they can spend how ever much they want.  There is no cap.  However, if the point is how much do they have to spend and not be crazy in the red then the numbers seem accurate based on pass seasons.  The thing to remember though, no team should spend on FA just because they have money.  That gets teams into bad contracts.  If you cannot get the guy you want for long term deal then fill what you need with 1 year deals if you can.  Too often teams that want to spend used to spend big on the top FA on the market, not thinking about they may not actually be wroth top FA money.  Being the best of average players does not mean you should get superstar money.  There are some high end SS and starting pitchers in this class.  The rest is pretty thin in my opinion.  The issue with the starters are most are getting older and could still demand high level contracts. We will see what they do when they do it. 

Among committed 2022 salaries to trade out of, Sano is the obvious choice. Beyond that, you are starting to trade away pieces that you need to be competitive.

So, the question becomes, do you:

- trade Donaldson, sign Berrios and Buxton, and hope that 2023 dawns with 2 starter prospects having proven worthy, OR

- keep Donaldson, stay in arb with Berrios and Buxton, and buy one amazing starter and take your championship shot before everyone becomes a free agent?

- surprise birthday pony option 3: increase payroll by $20M

I can't see option 2 being a good idea, unless you think the White Sox are frauds

1 hour ago, cHawk said:

Cleveland can’t win in the playoffs, though. That’s because they don’t invest anything into their lineup.

we have an owner with more resources than Cleveland, so this should not be an issue

So much of next year depends on Buxton and Berrios and whether they sign extensions or are traded.  Until that point, all of this is just a snap shot observation based on current information.   I think the piece does suggest some stark realities for this club's prospects for competitiveness next year.  Their inability to sign high impact arms through free agency does not bode well for next year.  We have learned that the team is not competitive for top end starters and that the relief pitching market is a crap shoot.  

All of this suggests that the team is really dependent on the development of the arms in their system.  Next year may be more about building for 2023 with the hope that their young arms emerge next year - but probably not being high impact contributors until 2023.

That reality speaks volumes about how the team will look at the current roster, which in my opinion, means dealing some very valuable assets to get high impact arms that have years of team control ahead.   As a result, I don't see Garver, Buxton and Berrios all being on the roster next year.  I suspect one or more will be playing elsewhere next April - if not sooner.

19 hours ago, Brandon said:

I can see the Twins resigning Pineda, and Cruz.  if they let Cruz leave, I think they would plan on trying to sign one of the SS in FA.  I think Pineda holds appeal because he can be had on a shorter term deal with his age and injury history.  I can see a 2 year 26-30 million for him.  I am not ready to give up on this season either as I think the Twins could get back in it with their key players coming back from injury.  They would need one of Ober or Dobnak to step up but if the Twins would go out and trade for a shut down reliever they could climb up the standings. What ever happened to the Twins top pitching prospects Balazovich and Duran?  Are they close to helping?

I have to quote myself as the Twins did go sign a reliever yesterday. (Kyle Barraclough)  Twins Sign Kyle Barraclough - MLB Trade Rumors Ha.  A guy who at best is a solid middle reliever from 2 or 3 years ago.  but seriously, I hate tanking.  And the offense has been on the rise.  if we can get some improvement in the rotation from a healthy Maeda and a rising Ober and if Dobnak can just get back to a being a decent if unspactacular pitcher I think the pitching staff would be almost there as well.  I believe we can get back to 10 games over .500 the question is can we rise enough to make the playoffs?  I would rather push to find out then crash on the season and give up.  Getting back over .500 will do some good for our attendance figures which will help with the budget for next year.  

I would love to speculate on trades and pick ups, rosters, and payroll, but the 400 pound gorilla in the room is the looming union contract status.  From what I have read, there may be a lockout or strike if the contract is not settled and no one knows what this will do to any free agent signings.  Add to that the fact Jim Pohlad has lost a considerable amount in 2020 and stands to lose a bundle this year as well, it might mean a cut back in contract commitments until all is settled.  Might be going with a lot of younger players making the minimum or close to it in the near future.   

1 hour ago, Mark G said:

I would love to speculate on trades and pick ups, rosters, and payroll, but the 400 pound gorilla in the room is the looming union contract status.  From what I have read, there may be a lockout or strike if the contract is not settled and no one knows what this will do to any free agent signings.  Add to that the fact Jim Pohlad has lost a considerable amount in 2020 and stands to lose a bundle this year as well, it might mean a cut back in contract commitments until all is settled.  Might be going with a lot of younger players making the minimum or close to it in the near future.   

Exactly my thoughts too, that new agreement is a huge factor to consider.  I'm not sure how they will do this but I expect owners to find a way to get closer to something like a salary cap.  Maybe it's just a higher luxury payroll tax but the sport has to get some level of control over the spending (both threshold and ceiling) to get some more competitive balance.  Players want the years shortened to free agency, maybe that's the key for them.  

2 hours ago, heresthething said:

Exactly my thoughts too, that new agreement is a huge factor to consider.  I'm not sure how they will do this but I expect owners to find a way to get closer to something like a salary cap.  Maybe it's just a higher luxury payroll tax but the sport has to get some level of control over the spending (both threshold and ceiling) to get some more competitive balance.  Players want the years shortened to free agency, maybe that's the key for them.  

What they do with service time is going to be very interesting.  The big market teams might not mind from a competitive standpoint but revenue from gate sharing is going to be hurt if parity gets worse.  Oakland and Tampa have managed to field competitive teams but the rest of the league is putting more value on prospects.  I would think the small market teams would absolutely dig in there heals on keeping something close to what we have now.  If those teams lost a year of service it's going to be even harder for them to compete.  In our case, Buxton and Berrios would be gone next year.

28 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'm hoping they give the players freedom earlier, and to help lower revenue teams do at least two things:

increase revenue sharing. TV and non-attendance items are more important for revenue.....and that requires more good teams.

Give some kind of advantage to lower revenue / bad teams in acquiring amateur talent. Like, an extra pick in round 1, or something. The faster a team can acquire talent, the less losing a player costs them.

Why should one company have to give revenue to a competitor so that competitors employees can get get paid more?  How is that even remotely fair to the large market teams.  Why is it so hard for you to understand this is a business?  Why don't the highest paid players share their income with lower paid players?  That makes about as much sense.  Player compensation has risen at an incredible rate for 50+ years.  Things are just fine as is.  Raise 1st year salary to 800K, 2nd year to 900K and 3rd year to $1M.  Leave the rest the way it is or perhaps make the 3rd year arbitration eligible.  I don't want our team or teams with lesser revenue to be at an even bigger disadvantage.

The one other thing I would change would be MilB comp and in a big way.  Max signing bonus would be $1M for 1st overall and the amount decreases by 2% per pick.  Milb payroll is increased equal to the amount formally used for bonuses.  With this change they could pay Milb players and average of $85K.  It could be something like 75K for A, 85Kof A+/AA and $100K for AAA.