Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Article: Top '13 Stories: #3 - Twins Spend On Free Agents

  1. #21
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,723
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 568 Times in 372 Posts
    To be clear, I am happy they spent better, I hope, on free agency. My comments are about whether it shows that Ryan has really changed or not.
    Lighten up Francis....

  2. #22
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,621
    Like
    3,697
    Liked 3,188 Times in 1,365 Posts
    I really like the Nolasco signing and agree its a change from the same old, same old.

    I don't like Hughes at all, although I'm glad they think they can, and should, address holes in their roster from free agency, and not just from the leftovers. That's a change.

    Retaining Pelfrey and signing Suzuki don't represent change, IMO. I do like Suzuki, but he's exactly the type free agent they've always pursued. Flawed and cheap.

    I'd be more inclined to think things have changed were they to sign Morales and Drew.
    Every post is not every other post. - a wise man

  3. This user likes USAFChief's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    mike wants wins (01-01-2014)

  4. #23
    Senior Member All-Star Hosken Bombo Disco's Avatar
    Posts
    1,054
    Like
    1,665
    Liked 494 Times in 288 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    no, and you know that is not what I am saying. I am clearly saying that Ryan has not demonstrated any change in his willingness to spend money. The payroll is effectively down again, third year in a row since he took over. Until he shows that he is willing to go for it, there is no evidence he is willing to go for it. I continue to hope he will prove me wrong. And if they are rebuilding, what is the point of a two year deal for a mediocre.bad pitcher? How does the Pelfrey deal help with rebuilding? Adding him, and blocking one of Gibson, Worley, Meyer, May, Deduno, how does that help with the future?
    I think the key word is "willingness" and even though he is now addressing needs through FA, and done an overall good job of it IMO, I'm not sure he has done so willingly. So I back you on this. Seems like people forget this is also the GM who praised player development and vowed not to take "shortcuts" not so long ago

  5. #24
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,954
    Like
    257
    Liked 205 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    My comments are about whether it shows that Ryan has really changed or not.
    But he has changed regarding the particulars of this thread--in spending on free agency. Whether that demonstrates a totalizing change in strategy who can really say, but it IS a change in tactics.

    What exactly is your measure of 'change'? You've characterized this offseason as same-ole same-ole which seems obliquely unfair.

  6. #25
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,723
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 568 Times in 372 Posts
    I acknowledged there is evidence of change, but we cannot be sure yet, didn't i?

    For me change would be Ryan increasing payroll, signing a guy that costs a second round pick......since second rounders rarely even contribute to a MLB roster, trading prospects for proven major leguers. Maybe MLR is right, maybe they should just punt the season, again. As a fan and taxpayer subsidizing the profits of billionaires, I have little desire for that to be the strategy again this year.

    can anyone explain how signing Pelfrey is about building for the future?
    Lighten up Francis....

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I acknowledged there is evidence of change, but we cannot be sure yet, didn't i?

    For me change would be Ryan increasing payroll, signing a guy that costs a second round pick......since second rounders rarely even contribute to a MLB roster, trading prospects for proven major leguers. Maybe MLR is right, maybe they should just punt the season, again. As a fan and taxpayer subsidizing the profits of billionaires, I have little desire for that to be the strategy again this year.

    can anyone explain how signing Pelfrey is about building for the future?
    How in the world do you get "punting the season" out of my comments. Just because I am not a proponent of doing something as stupid as signing Ellsbury to a 7 year deal when this team is three years away from contending in no way whatsover suggests punting the season. Giving away draft picks as well as selling low on players for the sake of signing players that might get us to 500 (Drew / Morales) is also not punting the season. It is managing assets.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    no, and you know that is not what I am saying. I am clearly saying that Ryan has not demonstrated any change in his willingness to spend money. The payroll is effectively down again, third year in a row since he took over. Until he shows that he is willing to go for it, there is no evidence he is willing to go for it. I continue to hope he will prove me wrong. And if they are rebuilding, what is the point of a two year deal for a mediocre.bad pitcher? How does the Pelfrey deal help with rebuilding? Adding him, and blocking one of Gibson, Worley, Meyer, May, Deduno, how does that help with the future?
    Pelfrey and even Hughes are bridge strategies. Not giving up draft picks helps with rebuilding. Giving someone like Garza 5 years has a sigificant probability of impeding rebuilding. Why, because they are far more likely to perform the first 2-3 years and underperform in the final years when the team should be contending. Rebuilding teams do not do this because the benfit is a couple wins and maybe reaching 500 in this case. The cost is unknown but potentially very high in that they prohibit bringing in help when it would actually help the team contend. It would make far more sense at this point to wait at least until next year when there is a better crop of true front of the rotation starters and the team is closer to contention.

    In addition there is no way Gibson is going to blocked if he has what it takes. I already listed options to assure that does not happen. And, you have made the point in the past this would be a good problem when it fit your narative. You continue to change positions as needed to fit your ideal of what the team should do. When you wanted Ellsbury you told us all how terrible the offense is. Then, a week later, you wrote a piece detailing why the team should break out when you wanted to trade for a front of the rotation starter the team was ready to break out.

    Rebuilding teams don't do what you suggest. Show me examples without claiming something as ridiculous as Boston being a parallel situation. Surely, there are numerous examples if the strategies you have suggested have merit. Let's see them!
    Last edited by Major Leauge Ready; 01-01-2014 at 05:35 PM.

  9. #28
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,621
    Like
    3,697
    Liked 3,188 Times in 1,365 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Leauge Ready View Post
    How in the world do you get "punting the season" out of my comments. Just because I am not a proponent of doing something as stupid as signing Ellsbury to a 7 year deal when this team is three years away from contending in no way whatsover suggests punting the season. Giving away draft picks as well as selling low on players for the sake of signing players that might get us to 500 (Drew / Morales) is also not punting the season. It is managing assets.
    mod hat on: I think it's possible to disagree with other posters without calling something they've advocated stupid.

    Mod hat off:
    It seems to me if one is advocating a strategy that precludes "signing players that might get us to 500," that is by definition "punting the season," no?
    Last edited by USAFChief; 01-01-2014 at 06:52 PM.
    Every post is not every other post. - a wise man

  10. #29
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,251
    Like
    108
    Liked 105 Times in 77 Posts
    "Change"? 16 months ago it was "..get three pitchers", all were free agents. This off-season's action--sign three free-agent pitchers, and one (discounted) catcher. The only change I saw is that more payroll was available within the budget to sign these free-agents. Hence, they targeted a "better" group and market conditions dictated that longer-term contracts were required. This is as close of an admission as we'll hear/see that the cupboard is bare for the foreseeable future. Real change would have entailed the signing of two "Nolasco-quality" free agent position players also. That would show that the front-office isn't just trying to "bridge to better" players/team but to commit to doing so now. That action would be enough for me that management is acknowledging that the "old ways" failed and that problems will be addressed ASAP rather than by the "luck-of-the-draw" in the draft and augmented by what can be salvaged from the dumpster.

  11. #30
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,954
    Like
    257
    Liked 205 Times in 115 Posts
    If you're only willing to define 'change' as the payroll surpassing some high percentage of revenue, you're missing out on the real progress the Twins have made so far this offseason.

    If we had polled the community and asked whether spending 84 million on free agent pitching constituted a change for the Twins, I imagine the poll would result in an overwhelming yes.

    Some how acknowledging the new approach to free agency is being conflated with believing the Twins have done enough to compete for championships in the near-future. No one is suggesting the latter, but the Twins have used an otherwise ignored resource (free agency) to unequivocally improve their product (the team we tune into watch and go to the ballpark to see).
    Last edited by PseudoSABR; 01-01-2014 at 07:54 PM.

  12. #31
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    877
    Like
    485
    Liked 84 Times in 63 Posts
    Mod hat off:
    It seems to me if one is advocating a strategy that precludes "signing players that might get us to 500," that is by definition "punting the season," no?[/QUOTE]

    No. Signing a player to a longer-term contract (think Garza) where the immediate benefit might be enough wins to get you to .500 this season would be fine IF the probability wasn't high that the same player and contract would restrict your ability to contend two seasons later. I doubt there's a single commentor in our group that wouldn't advocate a strategy of "signing players that might get us to 500" if there was an absence of a future negative consequence, no?

  13. #32
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,621
    Like
    3,697
    Liked 3,188 Times in 1,365 Posts
    "Punting the season" for no reason.

    "Punting the season" to increase the chances of competing in future seasons.

    Both equal "punting the season."
    Every post is not every other post. - a wise man

  14. #33
    Senior Member All-Star crarko's Avatar
    Posts
    1,229
    Twitter
    @crarko
    Like
    156
    Liked 782 Times in 411 Posts
    Fez on : Glad we already played 2014 and know the results. Fezzes are cool!

    Fez off: Oh, wait, you mean pitchers and catchers haven't even reported yet?

  15. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    "Punting the season" for no reason.

    "Punting the season" to increase the chances of competing in future seasons.

    Both equal "punting the season."
    There are very good reasons and they have all been given many times.

    Drew and Morales have little or nothing to do with rebuilding. They very likely would not be here when this team is ready to contend. The picks they give up yield prospects like Berrios, Eades, Turner, Gonsalves, etc. Taijuan Walker was selected with the 43rd pick. So, while it is true that a pick in the low 40s is far from a sure thing, that pick has far better odds of contributing to the future than Stephen Drew for example. Morales has even less value.

    In addition, signing some free agents (like drew) likely leads to selling low on a player who could become a much more valuable asset. (like Florimon)

    Then, we have the money. It is easy to ignore the cost when it is not your money. I can see expecting them to keep Mauer or others in the future. I can see expecting them to spend on FAs when the core has been developed and the FA in question is a piece we know is key to contending. However, the premise that the organization should spend $20M+/yr for 1-2 wins (and give up draftpicks) because they can or because the stadium was subsidized is unrealistic and unfair. If the team was given to the posters at TD (for free) and we voted on such expenditures, it would become an entirely different story if it were our money even if it were given to us. What we should expect is for them to remember the good profit years and spend aggressively when the team is contending. I don’t think that is nearly as farfetched as some might think.

  16. This user likes Major Leauge Ready's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    PseudoSABR (01-02-2014)

  17. #35
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,723
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 568 Times in 372 Posts
    If they had signed good players to long term deals 2 years ago, and been better, then signed a good player or two to long term deals last year, and been better, they'd be closer to a .500 team. Then there would be no "they are not close" reason not to try to win this year. But, since they refuse to do this, they are not really getting any closer.

    I guess, to me, not trying to get better than .500 is punting the season. We clearly disagree on this point.

    For my long treatise, you convinced me, I was wrong. They aren't close. So now I want them to go out and get close.

    If I was a multi billionaire, I'd be giving my money away to charity and trying to win baseball games, not trying to milk the baseball team for more profit. Assuming things about other posters' values is probably not a good idea, MLR.
    Lighten up Francis....

  18. #36
    I think the ownership has changed direction of Twins on Free agency its because they want to keep Twins Brand from further declining lessening its value. I have been thinking how soon is it before the Twins are renegotiating their Tv contract. I don't know but I thinking its coming up again so they need to have team people are willing to watch again and have interest in. I know there ratings have been sinking like their attendance has. It will be difficult to sign big tv contract if ratings and Twins Brand continue to decline. TV won't be willing to pay bigger contract if this happening and this would put Twins in poor revenue side compared to a lot of other baseball franchises. They need the Twins to start winning now not in three or four years to keep up their revenue stream and so adding free agents are not going to cost the Twins that much compared to what they could loose in net profits. I am sure baseball side of twins management this is eye awaking experience from operating on cheap since Twins came to Minnesota to now becoming player in Free Agency. I also think Twins ownership also has been trying to put in place a system where they are in contention year in year out without having to spend big dollars by developing steady stream of talent to major league level. By doing this they can be most cost effective and still generating high revenue streams into the team. With only adding Free Agent when need occurs because of injury or poor development in certain position. I think Twins have had major learning curve when coming to Target Field its changed how they have to do business. Also type of players they need are different than what they had a dome. Target field is nice place to watch and is more traditional place of baseball but the dome offered Minnesota the most home field advantage of major league baseball. It got good teams off their game and made our players better in that we could get buy with weaker hitters who if they new how slap and use the field to their advantage improved their numbers. It also rewarded our teams that worked on defense and learned to play their with better than normal numbers. I think this added 7 to 10 wins a year and if you had 75 to 80 win club this would put at 85 to 90 wins a year putting you contention. So Twins fans should never be down on dome as much they were it was one Major leagues biggest home field advantages and if maximized could lead you to playoffs.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.