"The Twins need to cut their payroll to the bare bone."
Ah. See, now I thought that was the cause of all the problems in the first place. A payroll that forced the franchise to bid premature farewells to stars like Johan Santana and Torii Hunter. But no, reverting back to their thrifty ways? That's the answer?
"Front-office types need to go back to standing in line to receive their daily lump of coal for the pot-bellied stoves in their offices. Paper clips need to be properly requested, in triplicate, via the appropriate forms. Soap fragments from the clubhouse once again should be lumped together and brought to the executive washrooms."
Because as everyone knows, conditions like these are the best way to attract the premier minds of the baseball industry to your organization's front office.
"And everyone needs to work by candlelight, circa 1999. Spend more money? No way. The Twins need to spend less."
There's a very basic relationship in baseball that goes something like: more money = more wins. It is no coincidence that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies win the most games every year. This seems...obvious.
"Some people just don't do well with money. The Twins, apparently, should be counted among them."
If the people running a multi-million dollar sports franchise don't do well with money, then, uh, they probably shouldn't be running a multi-million dollar sports franchise.
"When the organization was lean and scrappy, it fielded a solid, farm-grown team. One mistake could set the whole organization back, so we almost never saw a major mistake."
First of all: this implies that a Twins front office with less money would perform better than a Twins franchise with more money. I don't think that's true. Regardless of payroll, all teams have plenty of incentive to avoid poor decisions. Richer teams are just inherently more likely to make mistakes because they have more opportunities to do so, and possess the resources to better absorb the effects of those mistakes.
Second of all: remember the "we almost never saw a major mistake" thing. That will come up again.
"Veteran stars who became too expensive for the small-market Twins were swapped for legitimate prospects. Scouting and talent evaluation were paramount to success. Some called it the right way to do things; others called it the cheap way. We all were agreed it was the Twins' way. And it was good enough for us."
Sounds lovely. But...why aren't these thing compatible with a larger payroll? Or are smart trades and effective talent evaluation exclusive to "lean and scrappy" front offices?
"Then came Target Field, a wonderful ballpark that also happened to be a cash cow. Suddenly, the payroll jumped by between $30 million and $40 million."
Oh no!
"That's what ownership promised, and its intentions were good.
Everything went to hell. The Twins were like hillbillies who won the lottery. They didn't know what to do with all the cash. So they bought shiny things. And they ploughed money into long-term contracts, some legit but some ill-advised. And suddenly, mistakes were popping up all over the place. These errors didn't take down the ballclub right away. But after repeated goofs, well, here we are."
This is what I simply don't understand, especially considering it's coming from a Minnesota sportswriter. Where are the "long-term contracts"? Where are the "shiny things"? Those are misleading statements. I imagine that the Twins wouldn't be so bad right now if they actually had some shiny things. The truth is, they don't: only one significant contract has been doled out since Target Field opened before 2010. That was Joe Mauer's 8-year, $184 million deal. And he was coming off a ridiculously awesome MVP year in 2009, and he was the face of the franchise entering the first season of a new ballpark, and the Twins would've been crucified if they hadn't signed him.
What other big-money mistakes have there been? Justin Morneau signed his $80 million deal two years before Target Field opened, back in the "lean and scrappy" days, and no one could've predicted his concussion troubles anyway. Extensions for Nick Blackburn and Scott Baker, as well as Tsuyoshi Nishioka's contract, all were ill-advised, but none of the three will cost the franchise more than $15 million. There are a lot of reasons for the Twins' sudden downfall, but how can you possibly blame increased payroll?
Then things start to get really interesting:
"Now, the team is paying the price for getting absolutely zero for Johan Santana, the best pitcher in baseball at the time."
The Twins traded Johan Santana in February of 2008. Back when they were "lean and scrappy," not in their current "overprivileged" state. Nothing to do with payroll.
"It's struggling with a rotation that is too expensive to simply discard."
The Twins' most expensive (and most effective) starter is Carl Pavano, making $8.5 million. Everyone else is either making $3-6 million, or the league minimum. The failure here doesn't lie in bad, expensive contracts (of which there are like, none); the failure is the front office's inability to develop good, young starting pitching. Nothing to do with payroll.
"It's suffering because of the trade of two young regulars for Delmon Young, who was such an expensive jerk that he became one of those guys everybody just wanted to see disappear. They got nothing for him. And on and on ..."
Again: a trade made in November of 2007, in the "lean and scrappy" era. Nothing to do with payroll. What you're telling me is that the Twins suck now because the low-payroll regime made some bad trades and couldn't develop pitching. Remember what you wrote, like, a few paragraphs ago? About how the vintage Twins were so smart, "we almost never saw a major mistake"? Man, how anti-truthful did that turn out to be??
Mr. Powers needs to understand the difference between correlation and causality. The Twins' downturn coincidentally happened at the same time they bumped up payroll--but that doesn't mean one caused the other. The reasons for the Twins' slide are: A) past failure to retain key players due to payroll constraints B) failure to get anything meaningful in return for Johan Santana, Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett, and J.J. Hardy C) a failure to develop elite starting pitching in-house and D) a massive, crippling wave of injuries. The solution isn't to cut payroll for no good reason besides nostalgia for the "lean and scrappy" days. The solution is to reassign these new financial resources in a way that addresses the franchise's inefficiencies.
The new GM, Terry Ryan (an architect of the Twins' earlier success) has taken steps toward achieving that goal. One move that stands out is his signing of outfielder Josh Willingham to a reasonable three-year contract, and he's off to a great start. Maybe you should talk about that example of solid deployment of new resources?
"...Maybe the money made it easy to try to take shortcuts, such as Tsuyoshi Nishioka. Perhaps the excess cash increased the urge to gamble - see Joel Zumaya."
Really? Did you really write that? Are you really using Joel Zumaya (2012 salary: $850,000) and Nishioka (2012 salary: $3 million) as examples to illustrate how irresponsibly the Twins are throwing around heaps of money? Because yeah, that $3.850 million will sure set the franchise back years. In reality, low-payroll teams take chances on guys like Nishioka and Zumaya all the time simply because they're so inexpensive and devoid of significant risk.
"...But it hasn't been the same since the vault was opened and the payroll was significantly increased."
Sure, why not. Losing your best players and getting nothing in return, because you didn't have enough money to keep them? That wasn't the problem. The real problem is all this damn money lying around.
