Commitment to Winning vs The Budget
Over the past few months, our marquee players have come out against the organization and the way it's run. Instead of Kyle Lohse and AJ Pierzynski, it's now Torii Hunter, Johan Santana, and Joe Nathan (who also took it upon himself to put words into Morneau's mouth).
Something that's been very consistent in the current crop of complaints is that they all want the Twins to start spending money on themselves and other top level free agents to show some sort of "commitment to winning" that would vault the Twins into the top five spenders in the majors. The fans -- and, to a lesser extent, the media and bloggers -- jumped on that bandwagon, demanding greatly increased spending along with the elder stars of the team.
The problem is that it's foolhardy to demand that sort of commitment when you know the team will never be more than a mid-market team. When Santana claimed that if the Twins failed to sign Hunter to a megadeal, then it would therefore mean they had no intention of signing him, he was either being disingenuous or blind. In reality, signing Hunter to the type of at-or-above-market deal he was demanding would have ensured that the Twins have absolutely no chance to sign Santana. Not that they were then committed to spending even more money on Santana.
And now, Nathan is saying that if the Twins don't extend both himself and Santana, then it's clear that they have no intension of extending Morneau, he's being either disingenuous or blind. This organization cannot afford to sign the most expensive pitcher in the history of the game, especially since he -- like Hunter before him -- has become adamant that the Twins must pay at least market rate for his services. If we sign expensive, long term deals for Santana and Nathan, it would become impossible to keep Morneau, Cuddyer, or anyone else.
It's one thing for the players to demand a commitment to winning from the organization. It's another thing for them to completely miss the fact that the organization has a very strict budget, and simply can't -- or won't -- break that budget to sign high priced free agents. (Note, of course, that the team has offered these players huge amounts of money, just not enough years to take them well beyond their usefulness or value, which is of course what the players want.)
Thought nobody seems to be saying it, this appears to be much more a case that the players themselves have decided not to commit themselves to winning, or at least not to commit themselves to the organization that raised them, believed in them, and gave them the value they currently have. When you not only refuse to give a discount to keep your current team together, but demand more money than other teams would have to pay, you completely waive your right to complain about the organization.
Look at it this way: if the Twins had signed Hunter for $18 million per season and Santana for $25 million per season, it would not have demonstrated a willingness to commit to winning. It would have demonstrated a willingness to give into the demands of peaking players who've learned to pull the heart strings of the fans. And it would have demonstrated a willingness to tie $43 million out of a $71 million payroll (over 60%) in two aging players, eschewing the possibility of signing or extending the younger players that would actually form a winning team around them.
The Twins organization understands this. The players do not. The question is, as a fan, do you understand the limits this budget put on the team?
Posted by Sean Schulte at 2007-11-29 17:53:33
blog comments powered by Disqus