To Rebuild or Not To Rebuild

by Chaddens on Nov 22, 2007 8:02 AM EST Comment 13 comments

Is that the question? Aren't small market teams perpetually in rebuilding mode in some sense of the word? It's sad to see Torii go as he has been a big part of the Twins for quite a while now... but that is the economics of baseball and the Twins are living proof.

To rebuild? Does it make sense to rebuild since the reality of what most of us knew was going to happen anyway happending with Torii leaving? Does it make sense to trade Santana? Does it make sense to trade Nathan? Would the Twins be really that much worse? If the Twins were to obtain a young CF, a decent 3rd base option with which any offense was provided, a decent LF/DH option (Kubel taking care of one or the other), is the offense really going to be any worse than last year?

How about the pitching? With Garza, Slowey, Baker, Bonser and the return of a healthy Liriano and Perkins, the pitching will be solid. That's not even mentioning the up and comers in the minors.

If the Twins got a major league ready 3rd basemen and CF for Santana (plus more) and a major league ready DH/LF for Nathan (plus something more), would it make sense to pull those triggers and begin rebuilding? With these moves, the Twins would be a very young team - a lot of growing pains and stupid mistakes, but it would be fun. And they would contend again very soon.

I know it is much easier being an Arm Chair GM than what Bill Smith is going through but without the money that the big market teams have, it might make sense to rebuild now and have the youngsters ready for 2010 and the new stadium. Tickets and budget aren't going to be a problem for the next two years as the new stadium will sell out regardless of what's on the field in '08 and '09 - but there has to be a winning product for '11 and beyond - look at Pittsburgh and Milwaukee - they dropped by a lot in attendance after their first year becuase they didn't have a winning team. I say go for it and trade Santana and Nathan - their value won't be higher than it is now - and be some what ready for next year and gear up for a big push in the new stadium.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Retool

Smith recently was quoted using the A's as the model of how you can compete year in year out while losing good players. I would add Seattle in the early 00's as another example.

To answer your question, yes, I think they would be better by trading Santana and Nathan for major-league-ready players. And I think it will happen. Joe C. said the Twins have sent offers to both Santana and Nathan. Santana rejected his offer, countering with Barry Zito money (no thanks).

Nathan's value was just driven into the stratosphere by the Yankees, who signed Rivera for $15 million a year (also no thanks). I doubt Nathan would take less. Both players echoed Hunter's discontent with the organization after the Castillo trade. I think they're both determined to go to a winner, like Hunter.

Bill Smith will go into the Winter Meetings with two of the biggest trade chips on the market. If the contract negotiations remain unchanged, I expect him to come out with five players in their mid 20s who will be in the starting line-up in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised if he packages them together to the Dodgers (who contend with the Angels for media attention). These are the five I would like to see:

LaRoche (3B)
Kemp (CF)
Loney (DH platoon with Monroe)
Billingsly (SP)
Broxton (Closer)

Those five players would make this team the 2008 version of the Rockies, Diamondbacks, or Indians.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Nov 22, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, but not for that reason

>>>I wouldn't be surprised if he packages them together to the Dodgers (who contend with the Angels for media attention).

Acknowledging that in recent seasons the Dodgers have failed to completely overshadow the Angels when it comes to fan attention, the Dodgers still averaged 6,000 fans per game more than the Angels last season. This was despite enhanced marketing efforts by the Angels. And the Angels could not possible overcome that 6,000 per-game difference because even if the Angels sold out every game they just can't add another 6,000 people given the stadium's capacity.

It's fannies in the seats that matter, not a grab for off-season media attention.

Past all that, the Dodgers have made their move, and if anything it is the Angels who are reacting to the Dodgers by signing Hunter.

Between Torii and Torre, the Dodgers have signed the bigger name.

Joe Torre's career W-L managerial % gives the Dodgers a match for Scioscia's career %, and of course Torre's % as a Yankee manager blows Scioscia out of the water.

Torre becomes the Dodgers' first big name manager with a proven track record this millenium, and will likely help the Dodgers add to the stat that they already fill 85% of a 56,000-seat stadium. It's not likely Hunter's name along can do that for the Angels .

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Nov 22, 2007 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could those...

...6,000 fans have been driving around the city of Los Angeles looking for the ballpark and missed the game?

by roger on Nov 23, 2007 8:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

3 mil

but don't both teams draw close to or over 3 million a year?

I don't think the extra 6,000 a game matter at the end of the season.

Both teams draw numbers that the Twins can only wish for.

by caluofmn on Nov 25, 2007 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Man........

6,000 fans a game could add a million a game to revenue...roughly $80 million. You can buy a couple of free agents for that kinda money.

Of course, that's adding in the beer and nachos profit.

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Nov 26, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That has to become a new stat

nachos and beer profits...

by caluofmn on Nov 26, 2007 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want

I'm basically loking at something like this. We get Kemp, LaRoche, and Broxton for Santana, that's not even THAT much of a rebuilding year. That's a decent year followed by great years.

THe one problem with our big trading chips though is they both have expiring contracts coming up...

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Nov 23, 2007 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am in total agreement...

...regarding rebuilding, and now. But, is the Santana counter that far off what we can do? Lets assume he wants $126mm for 7 years as Zito got. He is already under contract for next year at $13.25mm; so an extension of $112.75mm matches the Zito deal. We just offered $93mm for 5-years. That leaves a gap of 19.75mm for a year 6, which would be 2014. My preference would be that it be at the Twins option with a buy-out of a couple million and perhaps a guarantee if Santana pitches 190-200 innings in 2013.

The sketchy reports we have seen doesn't detail the length and terms of Santana's counter at $126mm, but it may not be that far off what we offered. Now should we do it is another question?

by roger on Nov 22, 2007 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like 5 @ 25M

It sounds like he wants 5 years at $25M. If it is for 7 years and $125M, perhaps that would be something to consider...

by MagikLair on Nov 22, 2007 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Red Sox?

I just happened on this page at scouts.com http://redsox.scout.com/ which says the Twins have inquired about Clay Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury. Hard to see the Sox giving up Ellsbury, but according to the Boston Herald, "The Twins are known to be high on Crisp," and they'd obviously part with him. It seems realistic to get one of Lester and Buchholz, but not both, and I don't see them parting with Ellsbury or Pedroia after they won the fans' hearts in the playoffs. But they're talking.

If I had to pick one team most likely to pull the trigger on a Santana trade it would still be the Mets. They are desperate for pitching, need to win now, with several aging players in a demanding market, have tons of money, and aren't afraid to through it around by the boatload. Considering what they paid for a broken down Martinez, Santana for Zito+ money would be nothing for them.

Interestingly enough, that same page shows scouts.com's top 20 prospects in all of baseball. I thought the biggest obstacle to a Mets trade would be whether they have the young players required, but they actually have two players ranked in the top 20, Mike Pelfrey and Carlos Gomez. I knew they were the best prospects on the Mets, but I assumed that didn't mean much; apparently not!

Of course the Yankees have two top-20 players too, and that's not even including Kennedy and Chamberlain. If you could get two from Hughes, Cano, Chamberlain, and Kennedy, plus Melky, I'd go for that. I don't think people realize how good a hitter Cano is, and Hughes is the top prospect in baseball.

Man I hope they get into a bidding war. In the long term, the baggage of a giant contract cancels out most if not all of Santana's trade value, so no one should sell the farm to get him for one year. But whoever gets him becomes an instant favorite to win it next year. Unfortunately the Yankees and Red Sox do too much cost/benefit analysis these days. The really crazy offers still seem to come from places like the Mets (too bad they already traded Kazmir!) or the Angels ($90 million dollars???)

Which team do you think is most likely to pull the trigger for Santana?

by by jiminy on Nov 26, 2007 10:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Who pulls the trigger?

I don't know who is going to but it scares me if it is the Yankees. I don't know if I like what they have to offer plus it's in the American League. I think the Twins would prefer the National League and Johan might, too, so he can bat a couple times per start!

I'm hoping it's the Dodgers as I think their prospects will benefit the Twins the most. However, if it is the Yankees and the Twins can get Joba, I say it's time to trade Nathan, too.

by Chaddens on Nov 26, 2007 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If three teams are bidding...

...there's nothing to say the Twins don't get Lester and Buckholtz. But I doubt they would ask for both. They'll probably ask for Youkalis, Buckholtz and Ellsbury. Both the Dodgers (LaRoche, Kemp, Billingsly) and Yankees (Cano, Cabrera, Hughes) can match or beat that. I wouldn't rule out anything at this stage with at least three teams competing for him.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Nov 27, 2007 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs