The Twins need to literally make Joe Mauer a franchise player.

by Dr. Yogi on Nov 23, 2009 9:49 PM EST

I have an idea. It's probably a stupid one, but I'm prone to saying stupid things, so here it goes.

With today's news of Joe Mauer winning the 2009 MVP, all of Minnesota is wondering how in the world this little franchise that could is going to sign its second MVP in 4 years. With holes peppering the infield and a starting rotation that scares no one outside of Kansas City, the Twins cannot afford to spend all their limited resources on one player. Franchises that spend more than 20% of their total payroll on one player have not been successful, and for good reason. It's still a team sport.

Jesse broke down what Mauer's market value might be earlier. Even at a home town discount of ~20%, Joe could still be worth $30 million a year. So, even if the Twins were to go crazy and up their payroll to $150 million a year, Mauer would still be at 20% of the team payroll.

So, here's my crazy idea: Make him a partial owner of the Twins.

Why not? CEOs get stock options all the time. It saves a company cash and at the same time gives incentives for the recipient to improve the bottom line of the company. I have no idea if this is legal under MLB rules, but it should be.

If they're serious about making Mauer an offer he couldn't refuse, this would be it. It obviously would make Joe a Twin for life, and it would allow them to save cash to sign players around him to compete. The Mauers are a baseball family, and the name Mauer will be synonymous with the Twins. Make them a Twins baseball family. Make them actual partners.

The Twins need to literally make Joe Mauer a franchise player. It may be their only option.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think that's against the rules.

by ckb on Nov 23, 2009 10:39 PM EST reply actions

yeah, there'd be a little conflict of interest there

by JTW on Nov 23, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions

conflict of interest?

between who?

What would the rationale be for banning this? Why couldn’t an owner play?

"Sacrifice for the unknown" - Herb Brooks

by Dr. Yogi on Nov 24, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

Yep

It’s prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement (PDF warning!) – see page 213, section 4c of the Uniform Player Contract.

I’m pretty sure it’s the same way in the NBA (I’m reading Bill Simmons’ The Book of Basketball, and he refers to such a rule), although I don’t think it’s the case in hockey – Mario Lemieux came out of retirement while part-owner of the Penguins, and I don’t believe he had to sell his stake in the team first.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 24, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

Put his face on the logo

merch sales would skyrocket from females alone!

From the only TRUE North division

by thewild_viking_twins on Nov 23, 2009 10:56 PM EST reply actions

Yes, a no-no.

A friend said have Target pay him to be their sokesperson for $20 million. Which is fine, I’m sure, as Joe and his agent would readily love that ON TOP of his major league salary.

The sticking point, in Twins land, ahs long been length, not price, of contract. Hunter wanted more years, as did Santana (okay, not eally, they wanted the exposure that being on the coast could add to the old endorsement pocket-book). But, soemtimes, being a fish in a bigger sea with other big fish doesn’t always make for the best of times.

Can the Twins afford to give Joe more than five years. Actually,a s long as he is healthy, a longer contract would be a plus as the Twins have managed to pretty much even stuff out.

Can they give him a big, upfront, signing bonus. Sure, but management would rather collect interest on those dollars today and pay them out tomorrow.

Whatever they pay, it will be pretty close to market rate…with years the issue.

Yes, EVERY team should have a franchise player…above and beyond the yearly payroll. Some years, you may not truly have such a guy. If the Twins didn’t have Mauer, would you consider Morneau and his contract a franchise plaeyr contract, or just a darn good deal.

I have faith that the Twins are doing their homework well. That they can field a lowend starting rotation for a few years. That the $20 million they have invested in the 2010 bullpen is not a reality of things-to-come. That the outfield will really be a producing bargain for seasons to come. That someone does look at the Twins long-term and as players not named Mauer start to get expensive, they go elsewhere, replaced by others who can produce like numbers.

The gamble the Twins need to take now-and-then is similar to the situation they now face, going into 2010. They should always be able to field a competitive team. But can they field a team that will be victorious over bigger spenders who can cover their mistakes, who have just the right mix of players that can carry them thru a post-season.

2009. The Twins had quite a bit of promise from the bullpen, a young starting rotation, and hitters. Some excelled, some were disappointments. The rotation stunk to high heaven. The bullpen was up-and-down. But it did all mesh and the Twins were darn lucky that Cleveland and Chicago, both expected to run away with the division, didn’t. That KC was the norm (which is a major disappointment down there). That Detroit just couldn’t put together their own streak and take the division.

It ahs nothing to do with Mauer. You pay him because he is who he is…a superstar FROM the state that is home to your team. The next contract will really test his loyalty. Humm…Joe Mauer, catcher, Milwaukee Brewers. Wow! That would make headlines in 2018.

Visit www.TwinsCards.com and check out "rosters" to see my collection!

by rosterman on Nov 23, 2009 11:37 PM EST reply actions