Don Walcott

Honesty and transparency would be nice. In addition to the above, I'd like to hear from the FO whether they were really "in" on the top free agents, and if so, why we were unsuccessful. That's probably way too much to ask. But we're all speculating here, and not knowing is causing a rift between Twins fans who truly believe in this FO and those who are skeptical or even cynical -- and it's confusing to everyone in between. Even if I don't agree with their reasoning, it would be better hearing what that reasoning was than to have these arguments about what we think has been going on, based on the scraps and tidbits we hear from reporters. And I've come to distrust a lot of the reporting that is done during the off-season as reporters being used to spin information for one camp or another. All we really know is that the FO did not land any of the top free agents (other than our own QO to Odo). I can't really get behind them if they don't tell us why this happened. With the information we have,I can only judge this off-season by the results. And the results, so far, are not good. That being said, I could be won over by some honesty and transparency. I'm still happy about 2019, and optimistic that our core talent, including at least 7 homegrown position players and a few pitchers under team control who all may improve on last year, may make the playoffs interesting in 2020. But I'd like to know why we didn't supplement this roster, and what's the plan.

This is actually more than a theory. Studies show a bump of 10% in revenue after a team makes the playoffs after being out of it for a while. And there's more of a bump for winning the World Series for the first time in a long time. This seems like a particularly good strategy when our "window is open" and we are "projected to win the division," at which point we will be "ready to put our foot on someone's throat." I'm withholding judgment on the moves and lack of moves this off season. I don't care how much money they spend on players, nor if they don't spend on players, so long as the team is good. 2019 was a great season, and the FO should get credit for that (although I would have liked a trade for a starter before the trade deadline). The FO's success or failure should not be judged on how much money they spend or don't spend on players. They have plenty of money to spend, and a team that appears to be ready to compete for a pennant and a WS. If we save the owners a lot of money in the short term and fail to get results on the field, I'll be disappointed. Revenues, market size and the ability to pay for the best players will not be an adequate excuse, in my opinion.

You asked the wrong question. However, I'm sure that the owners have made more than $175 million between the team, the rental of the facility for concerts and other events. They were also given the adjoining properties to develop. But profits and losses are not particularly relevant to the purchase price of the stadium. They paid $175 million for a stadium that cost $600 million to develop. Depending on its market value, it is likely that they more than doubled their money the minute they made the deal. The only relevance of the $175 million (and amounts spent on any other substantial improvements to the property) is their basis in the property for tax purposes. They should be able to depreciate the value they paid for the property and count the depreciation against profits to reduce any taxable income in a given year. And if and when they ever sell the stadium, their basis does not count toward their long-term capital gains tax on the amount they receive for the property. And the owners are sophisticated bankers. It would not surprise me, given their assets and the value of the stadium as collateral, that they borrowed at least $175 million towards the development of the property at a very low interest rate, and have been paying off the debt on the property with profits from the operation of the property. Remember, they developed the adjoining land, from which they profit. They have the Twins. Every time they have 40,000 people at a concert they probably make a couple million between the gate and concessions. So they have a lot of income to pay off a loan every year, rather than come out of pocket at all. Meanwhile, they have more than $400 million in equity in the property. But even if they came out of pocket, they have certainly far exceeded that $175 million investment in income from the properties. The Twins profits alone would have exceeded that in 10 years, and I remember they received $50 million one year from MLBTR. And if they have no debt, they have a $600 million asset free and clear. So even if they did come out of pocket, I wouldn't worry about them recouping the investment.

Thanks. Obviously, there’s been some inaccurate reporting.

So far, I've seen reporting that Hill's deal can be for up to $9.5 million, for more than $10 million, and for an additional $9.5 million on top of $3 million guaranteed. Can anyone clarify what the deal is here? Just curious.

My bad, I thought you were arguing for the owners keeping $100 million from payroll. If what you are saying is that you would prefer that the owners donate $100 million to charitable causes, then that's a very fine sentiment. I'm not sure who you're arguing against on that one, though.

42.

First, I never said that the Twins could spend as much as the Yankees. To imply that i did is insulting. If your argument comes down to "the Yankees can spend more than the Twins because they have more revenues," you're knocking down a straw man that has never been argued on this site by anyone . . . ever. You obviously did not get my point in using the Yankees as a contrast to the Twins, and that EVEN the owners of the Twins can afford a high payroll. They can, even using conservative numbers. And people who argue that paying players more money will handicap the team going forward are naive to think that, in my opinion. People have been blaming Mauer for years, unjustly, for how much he was paid, claiming that it prevented the owners from getting other players that would help our team. Now, it's a hypothetical expensive pitcher who is going to prevent us from getting other players that would help our team in future years. I think that is incorrect. As far as how much goes to charity? I'd trust the players to use a much higher percentage of any "$50 or $100 million" that is up for debate towards charitable causes than I would the owners. So I think that's a terrible argument in favor of advocating stinginess by the owners. Although, I did just watch A Christmas Carol, so it's never too late . . . .

I didn’t say that any owners of MLB teams dig into their own pockets for payroll. Just saying that it wouldn’t hurt them if they did. The value in the investment alone far exceeds concerns over operating costs. It could be viewed like a real estate investment, where you don’t make any money, and you spend a lot on development, until you sell the project. And there are a lot of examples of businesses in which owners make investment with an eye towards building value, rather than short-term profit. When fans defend the owners not spending money on players salaries based on some kind of financial necessity, it seems naive to me. No owner of any MLB team has ever lost money by overpaying players. All owners can afford a high payroll roster, whether you own the Twins or the Yankees. Some simply are willing to spend more than others at the risk of making less money in any given year.

Billionaires did not become poor by having multi-million dollar hobbies either. The values of teams go up at such a rate that losing money in any given year or series of years doesn’t make much of a difference. In club soccer in Europe, FIFA had to institute Financial Fair Play rules you prevent wealthy owners from running teams at too much of a deficit. It’s not at all uncommon for wealthy owners to spend their own money to make their teams the best in the world because that is more important to them than making money in the short term.

I hear what you're saying. We just disagree. You believe Pressly would not have gotten any better as a Twin. I think Pressly would be as good as he is now, and he would have been willing to extend his contract as he did in Houston. As such, he would have been either our best or our second best reliever. We wouldn't have had to go after Dyson. We likely would have won more games. We could have had home field advantage in the playoffs. We'd have him going into 2020 and 2021. Who knows who is right as it is all speculation. The fallback position for both Escobar and Pressly being good trades seems to have become "they wouldn't have wanted to continue playing for the Twins anyway." Now that's truly a pessimistic view. But it seems to be prevalent on TD among those who believe the FO couldn't do any better than they are already doing (because nobody wants to play in MN). I just don't believe that's true. Nelson Cruz seems to like MN. Pineda signed on for two more years. Odo stayed. Romo re-signed. We have extensions for Kepler and Polanco. It's not like nobody wants to play for the Twins. And I hope we try to get extensions for Buxton, Sano and Berrios sooner than later.

First, I don't think anyone said that if we had Pressly, we'd have beaten the Yankees. And frankly, that has no relevance to the question of whether it was a good trade. I also don't think it has anything to do with being an optimist or a pessimist. Being a realist, Pressly has been better than anyone we received in trade for him, and he would have significantly helped the 2019 Twins. Maybe, at some point, that will change. But until it does, it was a bad trade because we could have had Pressly instead of a few very good minor league players who have no impact on the major league club (so far). I hope you are right about Alcala. If he develops into a good reliever, that will make the trade a lot less painful than it is right now. Finally, I don't believe that Pressly would be worse as a Twin under the tutelage of their pitching coaches and coaching staff. If that's true, we have much bigger problems than making a few bad trades.

Welcome to the site! Yes. If you read my posts (several of them above), I addressed this issue several times. Not sure why anyone would think he would have chosen to sign with Arizona after the season if he had a sufficient offer with MN -- 3 years $21 million. The only reason he got to know the DBacks was because we traded him there. And I still believe it is most likely (though as has been said a lot above, nobody really knows) that the Twins did not offer him 3 years and $21 million. And, again, if that was the case, it was a huge mistake. Ultimately, not signing Escobar to something around 3 years and $21 million, and instead trading him for prospects, has been and continues to be a mistake, in my opinion. The Twins would have been better in 2019 and would be better in 2020 (and probably 2021) with Escobar and Pressly than they are with all of the prospects for whom they traded in 2018.

Although I haven't seen the phrase used yet in reference to all of the "impact" pitching being signed by other teams, I expect "sour grapes" might become the buzzwords of this offseason.

Obviously, it's not impossible for him to leave graciously. He's a class act, and I don't doubt his sincerity. But his affection for the team does lend credence to the idea that he would have stayed for a reasonable extension offer. To say he "turned down their attempts to negotiate" also seems a bit speculative. Do you have any source for that information? Or are you simply saying that we were unable to get him to agree to the extension that our FO offered? Again, I don't know what we offered, but my best guess is that it was less than 3 years and $21 million, or he would have taken it. Remember, at that point, he had not yet played for the Diamondbacks, and would have had no reason to prefer them to the Twins.

That's possible. I don't ever recall hearing anything from Escobar other than he loved the team and the fans. We also haven't heard from the team regarding what they offered him to stay (if anything). You'd think we'd have heard a leak about it if the team actually made a reasonable offer. That's why I would guess that we didn't offer him 3 years and $21 million. And if that is the case, we made a huge mistake. So, my best guess, based on the information we have, is that we could have had Escobar and his 111 OPS+ at second and third last year for $7 million, instead of Schoop for $7.5 million. And we'd be talking about moving Sano to 1st this coming year and having Esco full time at 3rd. But, of course, we're all just using the information we have available to make our best guesses.

Escobar signed for 3 years $21 million at the end of the season. I highly doubt that he would have turned down that amount of money from us prior to trading him. In fact, we should have offered him more, as he's worth much more than that.

The Pressly and Escobar trades did not make sense at the time, and they still hurt. Of all of the names on the list, Pressly, Escobar and Lynn would be major improvements to this roster, if we could have kept them. Escobar's asking price was very reasonable. Pressly could have been extended as he was in Houston. Can't really blame anyone on Lynn, though it would have been nice if we had been smart enough to predict how good he'd be in 2019. I don't think any of the rest of the players on this list, on either side of the trade, would have made much of a difference in 2019. And I'm skeptical about whether any of them will contribute much in 2020 or beyond. So, overall, I'd say we were the losers in this group of trades when taken as a whole, primarily because we didn't keep Escobar and Pressly..

Considering how well Nelson Cruz did with Sano last year, I can't believe we haven't already signed up Bartolo Colon to work with Graterol. Mini Big Sexy, anyone?

Why not go all Minnesota State Fair on them and put all of this on a stick . . . and in a deep fryer.

I agree. It was the reaction here from fans I was talking about more than the reality. I'd definitely like to have Darvish in our rotation going into 2020.

It seems like many Twins fans tend towards beating the FO over the head for risks taken that don't work out as we had hoped (or at all) -- i.e. Mauer, Nolasco, Hughes, Reed, Dyson. And many also continually point out risks that we might have taken, but were better off for not having taken -- i.e. Darvish, Zimmermann, Cueto. Then we celebrate the FO when they are clever and find a bargain. It seems to make taking risks even riskier for the FO.

Ted, I always enjoy your perspective and the way you analyze how the FO has, will or should proceed with a plan. Thank you for your insight. I'm getting nervous about the number of teams in play for the top FA pitchers. I really believe the FO should focus on getting at least one of the big 5, and one other serviceable back end starter. We should also get a reliever. I would be fine sticking with what we have for a lineup, and bringing in one or two of the young guys to fill the gaps. Sano has such a good arm, and shows flashes of great hands. In my opinion, it would be a shame to move him to first at this point, when he seems to be on the cusp of becoming a good 3B. But if we can fill the hole at 3rd with Arraez, Gonzales, or others already in our system, I guess moving Sano the 1B might be the best long-term decision, as he's likely to end up there at some point anyway, and he might as well start getting good at the position sooner than later. Like other posters above, I'm not too worried about the defense going forward, as we have young guys who appear capable of improving, and a couple of stop-gap veterans who are good at several positions (Gonzales and Adrianza). But I'd also not be opposed to bringing in a glove-first SS and move Polanco to 2B. I'd also not be opposed to bringing in Shaw, who is also fairly versatile in the infield, and can be used as a platoon hitter. Bottom line is that hitting and defense do not seem to be as much of a need as pitching this off season, even without re-signing Cron (assuming his thumb heals properly by Spring Training). And I would be excited to see Rooker, Larnach and/or Kiriloff break out in this team out of Spring Training.

I agree that the move worked out for the Twins, and we should move on without any regrets. Schoop was good defensively, and was what you would expect offensively. He also seemed like a good guy who was not only a good teammate, but was willing to take a back seat to Arraez with minimum fuss. And now that we have Arraez penciled in at 2nd, he's no longer needed. I will say that I was disappointed that he didn't start Game 1 against the Yanks. But even if we won that game, it wouldn't change the fact that we're moving on with Arraez at 2nd, and some healthy competition for that spot internally as well.

This is a very cynical point of view, but it explains a lot. Hrbek turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him (bet he's never had to buy a beer in MN). Mauer turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him. Kirby could have made more money as well. I'll bet Tony Gwynn could have made more money if he'd left San Diego. Johnny Damon could have been a hero in Boston, and now he's a zero in Boston. Those are just a few examples, but I believe there is a long-term value for players to stick with the same organization and the same fan base.