The Twins posted the highest bid for negotiating rights with Tsuyoshi Nishioka and could now possibly be faced with the same press-box real estate issues that the Mariners and Yankees/Angels have dealt with since the arrivals of Japanese superstars Ichiro and Hideki Matsui. Only time will tell if Nishioka can be mentioned in the same breath as those two from an impact standpoint, but for right now, he has a media entourage that no single Twins player has ever drawn.
In 2002, the year of their first Central Division title with Ron Gardenhire, the Twins ranked 27th in baseball payroll. This year, their projected payroll of $110-$115 million puts them among the top ten spenders in baseball and has them on track to make the transition from a revenue-sharing receiver to a revenue-sharing giver.
The term “small-market” no longer applies. One could argue it hasn't applied since the Twins signed Mauer to an extension and opened their new stadium last spring. The re-signings of Thome, Pavano, and posting/signing of Nishioka further take down the “small-market” tag. As a lifetime Twins fan, I'm having a hard time deciding how I feel about this.
On one hand, it makes me proud to see the Twins shed the “small-market” moniker.
After all, aren't the Twins the perfect example of the right way to run a business? Instead of making high-risk, high-reward investments (big free agent signings), the Twins spent the 1990s and early 2000s with a primary focus on developing young, “home-grown” talent. For example:
Home-grown Players, 2002 Division Title Team
Eddie Guardado
LaTroy Hawkins
Torii Hunter
Jacque Jones
Corey Koskie
Doug Mientkiewicz
AJ Pierzynski
Brad Radke
Luis Rivas
JC Romero
The only major contributors that aren't on this list are Cristian Guzman, Dustin Mohr, and some starting pitchers. Let's not forget that another piece of this team was a great trade by Terry Ryan: Chuck Knoblauch for Eric Milton, Guzman, Brian Buchanan AND cash.
These guys along with the rest of the roster in 2002 cost the Twins $40,225,000. (Which represented a 66% increase from 2001). Now I know inflation is a reality, but for perspective, this year the Twins will pay $38,000,000 just for Mauer and Morneau.
My point is that the Twins developed talent on a budget and won games. Since these players were young, they were able to keep a cheap nucleus and keep winning in the following years. The Twins cracked 2 million fans in 2005 for the first time since 1993 (after barely drawing 1 million in 2000). Improved attendance led to improved revenue, and more importantly for the team's bottom line, growing support for a new stadium.
From there, revenues and attendance have only continued to improve while the team has continued to “succeed”. The goal of any business is to work within their means to generate success - taking acceptable risks along the way as long as the payoffs make it worth it. This early part of last decade was successful without big-name free agent signings and long term contract obligations. The fact that the Twins won from within and that none of their early Gardenhire-era division championships were simply "bought" makes the successes that much sweeter.
The Twins may no longer be "small-market", but it's because of their own hard work. It's paying off with another season of a healthy chance to win the division and 3 million-plus tickets sold. This is something that makes the organization and Twins fans (myself included) proud.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a bother to lose the “small-market” label. For me it awakens fears both about the organization's future strategies and our expectations as fans.
My first fear is likely an unfounded one considering the consistency that the Twins have exhibited over the years in both player and organizational management (they've only had 3 GMs and 3 managers in my lifetime). I've enjoyed the fact that a number of good Twins players have come from within the Twins farm systems - I'm someone who likes following the progress of prospects and seeing them do well with the big league team. While neither of them know me from the man in the moon, I feel more "connected" to Mauer and Morneau than Dodger fans did to Manny Ramirez. I'm not saying I'd turn away Albert Pujols if he wanted to play here, but the fact that the nucleus of the Twins are players who have been around a while makes them more fun to watch. I hope that the movement away from the small market doesn't diminish the team's valuing of player development.
Another fear is diminishing efficiency. The fact is that higher payroll and more wins are not strongly correlated. This was not only proven by the '02/'03/'04 Twins, but also the A's (earlier in the decade), the Marlins, and most recently the Rays. While the payroll has increased 275% since 2002, the Twins won 94 games in '02 and 94 games last year.
The thinking behind the $60 million more the Twins are spending nowadays is that they're not paying to win more regular season games, but they're paying win the games that matter in October. The saddest reality is that only the 2002 team advanced beyond the Divisional Round of the playoffs. And this is my biggest personal fear about the move away from small market-dom: With higher payrolls come higher expectations, and conversely, bigger disappointments for everyone involved when those expectations are not met.
For much of the last decade it was easy to be happy with division championships, but the last two years have seemed like letdowns. The fact that the majority of the playoff losses have been to the Yankees made last year an exceptionally bitter pill to swallow. This is a foreign feeling to Twins fans who weren't around for the playoff losses to the Orioles in the 70's - in my lifetime, the Twins have either won the World Series, completely sucked, or come out of nowhere to be successful with a team that wasn't expected to be good. Last year, the excuses were gone and "at least we won the division" was not a satisfactory consolation prize. I'm not used to being disappointed in the Twins, I don't like being disappointed in the Twins, and I'm afraid of continuing to be disappointed in the Twins. There, I said it. Maybe this is just baseball fan growing pains, but I still don't like it.
But what am I saying? Spring isn't a time for baseball fears. It's the time when "there's always next year" gives way to "this could be the year". There are a lot of reasons to be nervous about this year's team, but there are a lot of things to look forward to as well. When I'm sitting at the park on a perfect July night washing down a Kramarczuk's bratwurst with a cold Grain Belt all while watching Liriano strikeout AJ Pierzynski with a mind-bending slider, none of the above fears will be on my mind. And if July turns to October and Joe Mauer is hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy above his head - I'll be able to say to my fears: "You're not even a has-been. You're a never-was."
Bring on baseball season with all it's ups, downs, fears, and triumphs.
Good stuff, Bill.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more regarding the value of growing your team from within your own organization. It feels so much better to be able to say with pride that your organization developed a player to become a key member of a good team. I often wonder what it is exactly that Yankee fans are proud of. Who has more pride?: that guy in Alaska that built his own cabin with his own hands, or the guy who bought a "cabin" on Gull Lake with money from Daddy's business?
Have to disagree with you on parts of this Bill. (This is Alex, by the way). I remember those years of '93-'00 only too well, and while I'm glad they're over, they may be forgotten for now, they are NOT forgiven. There is NO excuse for it taking that long to even have a .500 season. That is NOT the right way to run a business. And even since getting good again, we have never been willing to make the moves that will ultimately put us over the top from a solid, quality, contending, division-winning team to a team that can win a World Series. Our World Series wins would NOT have been possible without free agent signings and trades where WE were the ones DOING the stiffing, not the ones getting stiffed. Yes, homegrown talent is a vital element, and of course we had those--Puckett, Hrbek, Gaetti, Brunansky, etc. But you CANNOT depend exclusively on it, as the Twins have been doing. Andy McPhail knew that, and that's why he was able to win World Series. What put us over the top was people like Gladden (free agent signing), Reardon (pre-season trade), Baylor (deadline trade) in '87, and Morris, Pagliarulo, and Chili Davis is '91 (all free agents). The homegrown talent would not have been enough. We've been getting away from this total dependence A BIT in the last couple of years, but there are still problems. On a team like the Yankees, yes, it's a bit more genuine for players like Jeter and Rivera--those who came through the Yankees' organization when the majority of those teams did not. But the Twins have been the total opposite, and it's not a winning combination. We need more Andy McPhail from Bill Smith and less Terry Ryan. Again, his moves last season give me some hope, but the two are still bedfellows for pulling off two of the biggest monstrosities of trades ever. You MAJORLY overpraised the Knoblauch trade. That was a JOKE!!! We gave up an all-star, .300 hitting second baseman coming off a season with a Gold Glove, 60 stolen bases and over 100 runs scored and get NOTHING proven for him. Ultimately, Buchanan was nothing but a pinch-hitter. Guzman was much ado about nothing--yeah he had some speed, but he never stole more than 15 bases in a season, and his average wasn't NEARLY what a lead-off hitter's should be. Milton had one good season (and even then his ERA was over 4) and then fell off completely. I thought nothing could bottom that trade, but I was wrong. The garbage we got for Santana makes what we got for Knoblauch look like gold. (And let's not forget that the reason Santana had no desire to sign with us long-term was NOT about the money--it was about his being fed up with our failure to make the necessary moves to become a World Champion again--don't believe me? Remember when Santana made the statement in the paper that effectively confirmed that he was through with Minnesota? If not, I'll refresh your memory. It was the day after the trading deadline in '07 when, 4 games out--more than still in the race, our one move was trading away a .300-hitting lead-off hitter for NOTHING. If it hadn't been for that monstrosity, Santana might have been willing to negotiate a contract, but he wanted to play somewhere that he thought he could get a World Series win. And if that's going to happen again, there are still some SERIOUS changes that need to be made.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading my post, and thank you for your comments.
Allow me to clarify a few points. I wasn’t arguing that free agent signings are unnecessary, I’m just saying that I appreciate that the Twins work within their means and allow us as fans to feel connected to a nucleus of the team for a long period of time. All I was expressing was that I never want the Twins to be a free-agent first, farm-system last organization.
Also, with the Knoblauch trade – and this is semantics, but still – I don’t think I “MAJORLY overpraised” the trade. Heck, I didn’t even use all caps or multiple exclamation points when discussing it…
I should have been clearer, but I called this trade “great” from the lens of the 2002 season. That year, Milton (13-9, 4.72), Guzman (albeit not great), and yes, even Buchanan (44 G, .709 OPS) played significant roles on a team that won a division title. That same year was Chuck Knoblauch’s last in baseball after his well documented “yips” in New York and outfield adventures in Kansas City. I’m not saying the Twins were clairvoyant of his future issues when moving him, but for where the team was in 1998, I’m not sure he was a good fit with the organization. He was good for another two years and then had nothing left to offer. Maybe it wasn’t a great trade – but to call it a joke is to miss the entire picture, as well.
You’ll get no argument from me on the quality of the Santana trade. Also, I understand your point about Santana being “fed-up” with the way the Twins were doing business and deciding to leave for that reason primarily. However, recall that Morneau was making similar statements about looking for the team to commit to winning (granted, he didn’t have the same leverage), but he seemed pleased enough to sign an extension here. Mauer didn’t make it as obvious, but is also a good example of a bigger name star not being “fed-up” with the organization’s way of doing business.
You said that ’93-’00 may be forgotten but will NOT be forgiven. I would argue that we should feel the exact opposite way – I’m willing to forgive those years and be thankful for the entertaining product on the field now, but I’ll never forget those years and will always be hopeful that they don’t return.
Again, thanks for reading, and thanks for your thoughts.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI think you failed to grasp the point of this post: mostly home-grown + some free-agents = a group of guys that are fun to cheer for over a long period of time. The formula may get tweaked a little from year-to-year, but Bill is suggesting that perhaps there is some value in keeping the formula as it has been for the past couple of decades. With the increased revenue the team now has, we can keep our home-grown talent after they become elite players, rather than letting them get away to those with deeper pockets (Hunter, Santana, etc.).
Only one question: Who brings up Dustin Mohr in a Baseball Blog?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're alone in having trouble adjusting. I think there are those who view the Twins as large-market now - and are angry that the Twins aren't signing big-time free agents every offseason. I think there are those who view the Twins as essentially small-market, and feel like the Twins should be rebuilding because "this team will never win it all."
ReplyDeleteI'll say this to calm some of your fears. According to Bill Smith, the idea of wanting to develop their own players isn't just driven by fiscal necessity - it is a core tenet of this organization. They will never abandon that. And based on the level of some of the talent they still have in the minors, I don't think you'll be able to see home-grown talent that you've known for years for a long time.
Basically I favor a thirds approach more or less. A third homegrown talent (which yes, does develop a sense of a greater connection to a nucleus of players you can cheer for and follow for a long time and does foster a more personalized sense of your team--I don't discount this at all), a third trading some of our own so-called "top prospects" (you know the ones we can pass off as such even though they'll never do a blasted thing--like what we've had happen to us on FAR too many occasions--remember Frankie Rodriguez? Remember Scott Klingenbeck? and those were long before Knoblauch and Santana) and using them to get some proven players--like I said, trades where we're the stiffers and not the stiffees, so to speak, and a third free agent signings. That provides a balance, it prevents us from becoming the Yankees, but it progresses well forward from our current combination (or at least what we've followed for a long time before a bit of progress last off-season before 2010 (which is no recipe for the kind of success (World Championships) that it's about damn time for again.
ReplyDeleteAs to Knoblauch, several things here. First, regarding the players from that trade and their contributions to the '02 team, I tend to look at it less from the angle of what they actually did (and by the way, a pitcher with a 4.72 ERA is not a major contributor to a championship team--13 wins from someone like that just means he got insane run support from his team, and come play-off time he's nothing but a liability, because you're highly unlikely to score 5 runs against the kinds of pitchers you'll go up against in play-off series. I look at it from the angle of what the kinds of players we SHOULD HAVE gotten for Knoblauch SHOULD HAVE been contributing to that team. Hell, we might have even been able to win it all that year. You're right that Knoblauch had to go given his attitude--it would have simply become a poison to the clubhouse. The issue was what we (didn't) get for him. You're missing a vital point too when you talk about him not being a good fit given where the Twins were at the time. That's exactly the point. That should not have been an issue, because they shouldn't have been resigning themselves to being so terrible for so long while they were "building up" the next generation of players. You MUST have ways to fill in the gaps in between, and that's the LEAST purpose that trades and free agents have to serve--as bridges between such times that the homegrown talent can carry the team. Keep in mind that this was basically the reason Knoblauch left in the first place. He too, was fed up with that attitude of resignedness to the long drought. Frankly I can't blame him for that. Though what I can blame him for was not leaving as a free agent the season before when he could have done so. I wouldn't have held that against him. I DO hold against him his signing of a 5-year contract in the midst of all that, playing one year of that contract, and then whining to get out of it. Although, even here there may be some gray area because it's possible that he thought the Twins' signing of him to that big contract was going to be the start of a new more imminent commitment to winning and would be followed by other similar moves, and then when nothing else materialized, he got fed up at that point. Another thing--he was 29 years old at the time and seemingly only on his way up--he had just come off a career high in steals and his first gold glove. Not sure where you got the "couple more years" bit--he could have had six or seven more good years at the time. Of course nobody could have envisioned his subsequent meltdown, and as satisfying as it may have been for all of us in MN to see him unravel after leaving, the fact is, when you're evaluating what such a player is worth, you go on what they've done up to that point and in particular the season they're coming off of. Given that set of criteria, he was worth MANY times what we got for him, and settling for what we got was inexcusable, just as it was even more so with Santana.
ReplyDeleteSegueing into that, you're right that Morneau had made some statements suggesting that wanted to see more commitment to winning, but it just didn't seem like he was at his wits' end the way Santana was, possibly because Morneau was younger and felt he had more time. (And this is at Dom W as well--remember, with Santana it wasn't about the depth of the pocket for him, it was about commitment to winning--he wouldn't have re-signed with the Twins for ANY amount after '07--he deliberately made a counter-offer far above what he knew the Twins would ever offer precisely BECAUSE he wanted out of Minnesota--a fact he made clear immediately after what we pulled at the deadline in '07. I'll never forget the line in the paper--the direct quote from him: "You always talk about future, future, future. But if you only worry about the future, then I guess some of us won't be part of it." Doesn't get much more blatant than that). Also, Mauer is a bit of a separate case because of the real hometown boy element--he's going to make an even bigger effort to stay with the team he grew up following, not to mention also the fact that by the time he signed that contract, Smith was FINALLY showing SOME signs last offseason before 2010 that he might be waking the hell up and smelling the coffee regarding the change in direction he needs to take, at least to the point of not COMPLETELY depending on the farm system.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to your last point. I chose my words very carefully when I said that '93-'00 are "forgotten (for now) but not forgiven" rather than "forgiven but not forgotten." The reason for this is best explained in a phrase that's more often used in politics (and given our political bends, I think you'll appreciate this one). "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The reason I am not willing to forgive it right now is because for the most part the Twins are still defending their strategy that doomed them (and us) to those painful years--holding up the team they have now as proof that it was the right play--and we're letting them think that when we hold up the Twins as an "exemplary way to build a team." I enjoy the team we see now, but I will not concede the necessity to have had those years in order to get what we have now. And unless the Twins do acknowledge the err of their ways in following the farm team strategy to such an absolute extent during those years, when this group of players starts to age, or if we lose a couple of them as free agents, we are indeed doomed to just repeat the same damn cycle again.
Having more revenue to spend on keeping our good players and adding an occasional top-tier free agent probably would have qualified as "commitment to winning" for Mr. Santana, I think. I think we're in good shape and I'm pumped about where the team is at and where we'll be for the next several years.
ReplyDeleteAt the time that Santana decided he had had enough, the Twins were doing virtually zip in the way of adding top-tier free agents--they only started doing a FRACTION of that in the last couple of years. Again, the straw that broken the camel's back for Santana in '07 was when we were in a position at the trading deadline where we should have been doing something that might have helped us close what was then only a 4 game deficit, we instead decided to DOWNSIZE, effectively conceding the season by making our one move be giving away a .300 hitting lead-off hitter for NOTHING!! Again, I can't blame Santana for effectively washing his hands of that situation at that point. If we took the lesson from that set of circumstances, then maybe at least some good will come out of that. I think we are in good shape at least this year as well, but as to the next several years, only time will tell. I certainly hope you're right, but this would be predicated on acknowledging that we have made some serious mistakes in the past and won't make them again.
ReplyDelete