Thread: Baltimore Sun's Connelly Thinks Saunders Isn't Winding Up In Minnesota

Originally Posted by mcrow

Yes, I think the Twins more than anything, as far as pitching goes, need an ace and continuing to have "5 spots locked" just gives them cause not to splurg on a big time pitcher. Ideally some of the $25M from the TV deal would be used to try to snag a good SP but I'm not even sure who will be on the market at that point.

50% = 12.5 million, not getting much more next year then a saunder for that kind of money

Originally Posted by mcrow

True, but if I do the math right they are well below the $106M they for this year that would make the 50% mark of revenue. So, we really don't know if or when they'll really stick to that number.

Yes, and that's why some are having a hard time with the Twins pinching pennies...and why adding 7M a year for the next 3 years doesn't seem like an issue considering where we sit now payroll wise and where we'll be sitting in 2 years after this year payroll-wise.

Originally Posted by mcrow

2/14 isn't too rich but 3/24 is too rich, IMO. I don't think a guy like Saunders is worth three years unless it's a very good price, though in 3 years $8m might be a steal for any warm body that can toss a ball.

a guy who gives you 180+ innings with an ERA+ at or above 100 is a valuable pitcher.

If they don't spend the 50% then they should give it to the fans and not pocket it.

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

50% = 12.5 million, not getting much more next year then a saunder for that kind of money

Yup, it's not that huge of a bump considering that the FA Market is probably going to be inflated by the influx of cash around the league.

Either way if the prices is right Saunders could be a good pick up but I'd be pretty cautious about giving 3 years to him.

Why would they only spend half of the new money? What costs are going up to eat the other half?

Originally Posted by ThePuck

If they chose to stay at 80M in the future, that will be a self-imposed hamstringing of payroll...and likely wouldn't be in keeping with their supposed 50-52% rule they've told us for so long, which wouldn't be keeping their word when they talked about why the stadium was needed in the first place.

And that is a new thing? Not keeping there word. Just look at this off season , i think you can find several things that were said or promised that have not been true.

They have a state of the art money making stadium and have for the past 2 years given us one of the worst teams in baseball to watch. Spending another 15-20m has to make the team better on the field. If TR can't find the players to make us better with that kind of money in hand he needs to find another job.

Next year the payroll will likely be down around 70m, very sad.

We as fans deserve better!!

Originally Posted by mcrow

Sorry, new to the forums and I didn't know there's been a ton of talk about that already. I just point it out because people seem to assume that the payroll will go up be we have little evidence of that being a sure thing.

Yup , in fact i think most believe it will continue to shrink ....

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

Why would they only spend half of the new money? What costs are going up to eat the other half?

Sounds like it's just an extra $25M in revenue so unless they've made some special promise to spend more than 50% that's all they said they will spend. They have said for quite a while now that they will spend 50% of revenue.


Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into arguement about the payroll/spending but I'm affraid the damage is done.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

Why would they only spend half of the new money? What costs are going up to eat the other half?

Well i heard to rent a brinks truck is going to cost more ....

Originally Posted by mcrow

2/14 isn't too rich but 3/24 is too rich, IMO. I don't think a guy like Saunders is worth three years unless it's a very good price, though in 3 years $8m might be a steal for any warm body that can toss a ball.

I agree, I don't think many would be too in favor of a 3rd year for Saunders, unless it was some kind of team option.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into arguement about the payroll/spending but I'm affraid the damage is done.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, given the regularity that they occur it was bound to happen sometime today anyway.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Sounds like it's just an extra $25M in revenue so unless they've made some special promise to spend more than 50% that's all they said they will spend. They have said for quite a while now that they will spend 50% of revenue.


Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into arguement about the payroll/spending but I'm affraid the damage is done.

Jim Pohlad also said in rebuilding years, that percentage will drop...which tells me rebuilding years is good for the 'ole pocketbook...

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

Why would they only spend half of the new money? What costs are going up to eat the other half?

Well, there's.....and then of course we have.....not to mention that......


Well what do you know, I can't come up with a single one.

Let's just take our stadium back.

Originally Posted by Top Gun

Let's just take our stadium back.

Sue on breach of contract?

Some farmer may want to plant corn there!

I will buy a ticket, watching corn grow will be more exciting than watching the Twins play anyways. Is Saunders any good at hoe in corn?

Originally Posted by mcrow

At this point I don't see the value in having to commit to Saunders for multiple years. Very mediocre starter over 30 so offering multiple years for a rebuilding team would seem like a bad idea. Maybe you give him 2 years if the price is right but that's it.

Mediocre starter over 30?.... That's right in the Twins wheelhouse!