PDA

View Full Version : Mackey: Blaming Payroll for Twins shortcomings is a lazy excuse



Seth Stohs
08-12-2012, 10:38 PM
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a _lazy_excuse081212


Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.
Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

greengoblinrulz
08-12-2012, 10:53 PM
absolutely agree

jokin
08-12-2012, 11:21 PM
[QUOTE=Seth Stohs;45115]http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a _lazy_excuse081212



"But the Twins have $11 million tied up in Nick Blackburn (http://twinsdaily.com/pages/roster.php?pID=2), Jason Marquis (http://twinsdaily.com/pages/roster.php?pID=317) and Tsuyoshi Nishioka (http://twinsdaily.com/pages/roster.php?pID=222), who have acted as anchors for a ship already halfway under water."

Just want to go on the record about using the ship metaphor myself before this was published.


"And anyone who believes the Twins should be expected -- or even have the resources -- to spend with the Angels, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and others is living in a fantasy world.
On what planet should the Twins -- ranked 15th among 30 MLB teams in TV market size -- sit anywhere other than on the fringe of the top 10 payrolls in baseball?

In what wild dream should the Twins -- who collect approximately $29 million per year in TV revenue -- have the resources to spend the same amount of money on payroll as the Angels, who bring in $150 million per year in TV revenue, or the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox, who all bring in even more?
In what universe should the Twins -- ranked 29th among 30 MLB teams in local cable/satellite subscriber rate, which is the driving factor for television revenue -- be able to spend their way out of poor drafting and other personnel mistakes?"

Phil's, of course, right about some poor front office direction and decision-making the last 6 years. But this above quote is entirely overblown and overstated and belies the Twins very marketing plan foisted upon the public in order to get the new stadium built in the first place. The evidence is pretty solidly established out there that the ownership group is one of the wealthiest in all of baseball and that the team is generating revenue in excess of $200M, more than sufficient to have made a run at signing 3 FA pitchers on a short-term basis (above Marquis-level bargain-basement) to make up for the dead weight contracts that come off the books after 2012- The Twins made a decision that this was an interim year as part of a process in making corrections and revisions to the previous bad management errors, they made a financial decision that they could not walk and chew gum at the same time in the short-term. The evidence suggests they were in "playing-it-safe-mode", taking a deep cleansing breath, which is an arguable ledge to stand on given the disastrous 2011 season; many on the other side of this argument weren't in some "wild dream" state as Phil accuses, by simply suggesting there was a way to roll the dice on 2012 by adding players on one-year contracts at a payroll similar or even less than 2011, without jeopardizing the club's competitive and financial health, long-term.

Seth Stohs
08-12-2012, 11:35 PM
If we agree that revenues are $200 million, and they spend even 50% on payroll (teams try to be within 48-50%), that's a $100 million payroll. So, yes, they went over payroll last year, and it didn't work. This year, they were more responsible. The key is not the payroll, it's how the payroll dollars are spent. The Twins, like all but about 4-5 teams, have little margin for mistakes and bad contracts. Frankly, the Twins have to get out from a couple of those bad contracts... and they also need a couple of young guys to come up and become solid regulars. Why? Because having a few contributing players at $450,000 allows money to be spent elsewhere. It's a balance.

StormJH1
08-12-2012, 11:46 PM
Don't always agree with Mackey, but I've reiterated the points in his article so many times, I felt like I could've written it!

I hear what jokin is saying above about 2012 being a "play it safe" year, but I guess it's tough for some fans to accept that the foundation of this team was in such rough shape that one major signing, or even a series of short-term signings really couldn't have prevented them from being horrible this year.

If you don't believe that, consider this: Mauer and Morneau have been mostly healthy for the whole year, AND the team's two free agent signings of Willingham and Doumit have succeed equal to or beyond all reasonable expectations for them. Yes, much of that is offset by the loss of Cuddy and Kubel last offseason, but when virtually your whole rotation becomes undependable in the span of 2 years, it's pretty clear that you've been failing to restock your system with arms, which ironically, was something Terry Ryan was criticized for doing TOO MUCH of in the mid-2000's. (Everyone said we needed to trade Garza, Slowey, etc. for some bats because we had something like 8 future starters coming up at the same time. We got Delmon Young.).

Mauer's a good player. Morneau may have some life left in him. But I'm not sure you can just blow off the fact that those two are about 2/5 of the entire payroll, and they aren't impact players in the way Cabrera and Fielder are for Detroit, or other middle-of-the-order hitters are for other teams. No, they don't deserve the blame for us being bad - that goes to the pitching. But one of the main REASONS we can't aggressively fix our errors in the pitching staff through FA is the money tied up in those two players.

I guess it's a Catch-22. I don't honestly think most fans are mad at Joe Mauer for not being a 30 HR guy. I think even the haters (at least the baseball-educated ones) understand that he has a certain approach to the game, and is elite at what he does. But I think they're also mad/frustrated at the whole situation because they were sold the idea that we could afford a Joe Mauer based on the premise that we were going to be a $110 or $120 million team. Now that we don't have that budget, it places more pressure on Mauer, fair or not.

jokin
08-12-2012, 11:50 PM
If we agree that revenues are $200 million, and they spend even 50% on payroll (teams try to be within 48-50%), that's a $100 million payroll. So, yes, they went over payroll last year, and it didn't work. This year, they were more responsible. The key is not the payroll, it's how the payroll dollars are spent. The Twins, like all but about 4-5 teams, have little margin for mistakes and bad contracts. Frankly, the Twins have to get out from a couple of those bad contracts... and they also need a couple of young guys to come up and become solid regulars. Why? Because having a few contributing players at $450,000 allows money to be spent elsewhere. It's a balance.

Agreed. The team, though was in the "compete-now" phase of the payroll cycle and if the Twins had felt confident enough about the anomalous nature of 2011, could have made a run in 2012 by trading or buying out some more high-dollar guys (like Liriano and Nishi) in the off-season, made a run at the one-year FA pitchers available and still come in at slightly above $100M. Again without doing any long-term damage or heightened risk with more dead-weight contracts.

They didn't, which implies that it is going to take some more time to right this ship, perhaps 2014.

James Richter
08-13-2012, 12:42 AM
The boost in payroll from Target Field's revenue was more about keeping from our home-grown stars than hiring big free agents. This year it enabled them to avoid salary-dumping deadline trades that would have diminished a solid lineup that can return intact in 2013. This offseason we'll see whether they can spend that extra cash wisely on fixing the rotation. Pre-Target Field that wouldn't have even been a possibility.

Highabove
08-13-2012, 03:53 AM
Phil Mackey makes some very good points which I agree with. Unfortunately, Mackey uses much of his effort to belittle and mock those who hold a different point of view. Phil rarely gives both sides of an issue, such as the Years, the Twins underpaid the Payroll.

The Pohlad's have stated for years, that their payroll would reflect 50%of revenue
In their last year at the Dome in 2009, the Twins pretax earnings were almost as large as they were at Target Field in 2010.

Forbes Magazine reported that the Twins had 162 million dollars in revenue and realized pretax earnings of 25 million, the 9th highest inBaseball. This is at the Dome!!

The opening day payroll was 65,299,267. The Twins were way below the 50%of Revenue that the Pohlad's sell us. This probably accounts for their large 2009 earnings.

In their first year at Target Field, Forbes reported revenue of 213million with pretax earnings of 26.5 million.
Starting day payroll was 97500 which again falls below 50% of revenue.

Here is two years of payroll under payments, based on 50% of Revenue. We will only be reminded of the payroll over payment of 2011. Do not expect the Phil Mackey's of the World, to ever bring up the years that the Twins were under paying their self proclaimed payroll model.

Most of the Fan do not expect the Twins to spend at Big Market levels, but continuing Payroll cuts will anger the Fan Base.
Phil Mackey can take his shots.


The Business Of Baseball - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html)

The Business Of Baseball, 2011 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)

The Business Of Baseball (http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/)

old nurse
08-13-2012, 05:40 AM
Forbes Magazine reported that the Twins had 162 million dollars in revenue and realized pretax earnings of 25 million, the 9th highest inBaseball. This is at the Dome!!





Forbes is using an estimate when they project revenues. They have attendance figures but not discounts for tickets. They estimate revenue generated by the stadium and merchandise without any real clue.

Seth Stohs
08-13-2012, 07:28 AM
Correct! And the Twins base their payroll on estimated revenues for the upcoming season.

Like Phil, I just believe that too many use payroll as reasoning, but at the end of the day, thats such a small piece of the puzzle. Making good baseball decisions and then how the players actually play us what matters.

DPJ
08-13-2012, 07:37 AM
How in the hell is saying the Twins suck based off the payroll?

USAFChief
08-13-2012, 07:38 AM
It's certainly true poor decisions by Twins management has wasted payroll. However,

1. Most of what is contained in Mackey's rant is unrelated to the Twins payroll. What the Yankees, or Phillies, pay their players, for example, isn't a factor in how much the Twins could, and should be spending. Drives up the cost of free agents? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the Twins available payroll. Nor, really, does spending poorly--but under budget--explain why they can't spend to budget. Are they so convinced their general manager doesn't know what he's doing that they took budget away to ensure it's not spent at all, rather than spent badly? Because they spent $11m badly, they forego spending entirely, even if money is available?

2. The Twins themselves have said, many times, they'll spend 52% of revenue (not "50%," 52). Unless Kelly Thesier can't be trusted, Jim Pohlad himself said that:

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090206&content_id=3805944&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min

So the issue isn't how much other teams are spending, or what they're spending it on, or the market size, the issue is, "are the Twins living up to the promises they've made to the fan base, and to the taxpayers who are paying for much of a new stadium?"

3. Any impartial look at available data indicates they haven't spend anywhere near 52% in at least 2 of the 3 seasons in TF, and barely exceeded it in one year. And that doesn't even address the legitimate question of whether or not they can afford to devote a higher percentage of revenue to payroll in TF than they could in the dome. Why would they need to devote tens of millions more to costs other than payroll now? Why was roughly $65m enough to fund everything other than payroll in the dome, but now they need $100m+?

drivlikejehu
08-13-2012, 08:26 AM
Payroll didn't cause the team to fall to the bottom of the league. But it certainly could limit their ability to get back in contention.

Fire Dan Gladden
08-13-2012, 08:45 AM
It's certainly true poor decisions by Twins management has wasted payroll. However,

1. Most of what is contained in Mackey's rant is unrelated to the Twins payroll. What the Yankees, or Phillies, pay their players, for example, isn't a factor in how much the Twins could, and should be spending. Drives up the cost of free agents? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the Twins available payroll. Nor, really, does spending poorly--but under budget--explain why they can't spend to budget. Are they so convinced their general manager doesn't know what he's doing that they took budget away to ensure it's not spent at all, rather than spent badly? Because they spent $11m badly, they forego spending entirely, even if money is available?

2. The Twins themselves have said, many times, they'll spend 52% of revenue (not "50%," 52). Unless Kelly Thesier can't be trusted, Jim Pohlad himself said that:

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090206&content_id=3805944&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min

So the issue isn't how much other teams are spending, or what they're spending it on, or the market size, the issue is, "are the Twins living up to the promises they've made to the fan base, and to the taxpayers who are paying for much of a new stadium?"

3. Any impartial look at available data indicates they haven't spend anywhere near 52% in at least 2 of the 3 seasons in TF, and barely exceeded it in one year. And that doesn't even address the legitimate question of whether or not they can afford to devote a higher percentage of revenue to payroll in TF than they could in the dome. Why would they need to devote tens of millions more to costs other than payroll now? Why was roughly $65m enough to fund everything other than payroll in the dome, but now they need $100m+?


1) They don't forego spending entirely, they just don't believe that organizationally they should be throwing big, long term money at pitching or at outside FA. TR has said publicly multiple times that the team would go over budget if they thought the move would benefit the team, so the Twins willingness to pay for people is there.

2) Good luck finding any organization that fullfills all promises made during the run for a new stadium. It's like a presidential election: say enough to get the public on your side, then deliver reality which always falls short.

3) I would love to see the "impartial data" that supports your theory that the Twins aren't spending 52%. The question of whether they can afford a higher % is moot as the Pohlads have decided that is the percentage they are willing to put to payroll. Considering the brainpower and dollars involved coming from a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, it's hard for little old me to say that 52% is too low. Operating costs are more than just running a stadium. I would be willing to bet there have been dollar increases in scouting, advertising, and yes, personal income for the Pohlads.

Harrison Greeley III
08-13-2012, 08:47 AM
The only thing I disagreed with Mackey on this article was the TV deal. The Rangers are somehow getting $80 million from their TV deal in a very comparably-sized market. FSNorth somehow got the Sunday games off of free TV and got their deal for $29 million. That makes this statement


In what wild dream should the Twins -- who collect approximately $29 million per year in TV revenue -- have the resources to spend the same amount of money on payroll as the Angels, who bring in $150 million per year in TV revenue, or the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox, who all bring in even more?

problematic. Maybe $80 million wasn't in the question but the Twins left a ton of money on the table, especially considering the new NBC Sports could have possibly offered a competing bid. But in the end, that only contributes to Mackey's point about the Twins' ability to wisely invest and spend their money.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 08:49 AM
The only thing I disagreed with Mackey on this article was the TV deal. The Rangers are somehow getting $80 million from their TV deal in a very comparably-sized market. FSNorth somehow got the Sunday games off of free TV and got their deal for $29 million. That makes this statement


In what wild dream should the Twins -- who collect approximately $29 million per year in TV revenue -- have the resources to spend the same amount of money on payroll as the Angels, who bring in $150 million per year in TV revenue, or the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox, who all bring in even more?

problematic. Maybe $80 million wasn't in the question but the Twins left a ton of money on the table, especially considering the new NBC Sports could have possibly offered a competing bid. But in the end, that only contributes to Mackey's point about the Twins' ability to wisely invest and spend their money.

Dallas Ft. Worth is almost double the size of the Twins Cities and is the fourth-largest metro market in the country behind the big three of NY, LA, and Chicago (all of which support multiple teams while Dallas has only the one).

Alex
08-13-2012, 08:57 AM
I mostly agree with Mackey though I think, as some have pointed out, his argument uses extremes and focuses mostly on the negatives in FA and spending, and the Twins added several positive pieces that way, too.

In the end it is all about baseball decisions. Right now, though, I think the payroll is the focus because there are three ways to add talent to a team: the draft, trades, and free agency.

The first is over and help from any draft still appears to be a couple years off. The Twins didn't make any impactful trades In terms of adding youth and talent, though maybe they will in the offseason. Which leaves only really free agency, and the fear becomes that they will cut payroll again, with the fear that they could be worse.

Top Gun
08-13-2012, 09:17 AM
It all starts at the front office!

JB_Iowa
08-13-2012, 09:18 AM
I was also disappointed in the TV deal. I had hoped that they would end up more in the range of Detroit - about $35-$40 million per year. Given market size, $29 million still looks low given that it was a recently negotiated deal but I suspect that it was depressed by demographics and by the Twins lingering memory of how they screwed up on TV rights in the early 2000's. My guess is that they were reluctant to take too hard a position given how the earlier negotiations played out. Of course, in my opinion, FSN could also save money by reducing the number of talking heads on Twins broadcasts and focusing on the game instead of all this folderol in the stands and in the booth and that money (though not particularly significant) could have been put back into the rights equation.

I think we can all agree with Mackey that the Twins need to spend more wisely and I really didn't have a problem with this year's payroll level given all the health uncertainties that lingered from last year.

BUT I do have a problem on the 52% question. IF the Forbes calculations are so wrong, the Twins can easily correct that. All they have to do is break the silence and release the actual figures (in some veriified or verifiable manner) -- but they don't do that. They simply tap dance around.

Until they release figures that show the Forbes calculations to be wrong, I think fans have a right to expect that they WILL spend 50% - 52% of the revenues that Forbes estimates. Would it guarantee a winner? Of course not. But some upgraded starting pitching is very likely to have increased the number of wins this year.

John Bonnes
08-13-2012, 09:26 AM
The only thing I disagreed with Mackey on this article was the TV deal. The Rangers are somehow getting $80 million from their TV deal in a very comparably-sized market. FSNorth somehow got the Sunday games off of free TV and got their deal for $29 million. That makes this statement


In what wild dream should the Twins -- who collect approximately $29 million per year in TV revenue -- have the resources to spend the same amount of money on payroll as the Angels, who bring in $150 million per year in TV revenue, or the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox, who all bring in even more?

problematic. Maybe $80 million wasn't in the question but the Twins left a ton of money on the table, especially considering the new NBC Sports could have possibly offered a competing bid. But in the end, that only contributes to Mackey's point about the Twins' ability to wisely invest and spend their money.

Dallas Ft. Worth is almost double the size of the Twins Cities and is the fourth-largest metro market in the country behind the big three of NY, LA, and Chicago (all of which support multiple teams while Dallas has only the one).

More importantly, I think Dallas has multiple regoinal sports channels, so there is essentially a bidding war. FSN essentially has a monopoly here.

Harrison Greeley III
08-13-2012, 09:30 AM
Dallas Ft. Worth is almost double the size of the Twins Cities and is the fourth-largest metro market in the country behind the big three of NY, LA, and Chicago (all of which support multiple teams while Dallas has only the one).

Which doesn't have much to do with television markets.

I was looking at this.
http://www.deepintosports.com/2009/07/21/mlb-baseball-television-market-shars-tv-households-nielsen-dma-payroll/

And again while the Rangers certainly have a larger market, it's not like they have a market that's almost 3 times the size of the Twins' market. Given the deal FSNorth got, that's apparently how the Twins evaluated the situation.

Harrison Greeley III
08-13-2012, 09:34 AM
More importantly, I think Dallas has multiple regoinal sports channels, so there is essentially a bidding war. FSN essentially has a monopoly here.


Do they? When NBC Sports and Comcast merged, was it out of the question for them to make a play for the Twins? It appeared that FSN had the monopoly, but that wasn't going to last for long. Kudos to FSN for getting the deal locked up before the Twins had the sense to realize they'd have another buyer, I suppose.

USAFChief
08-13-2012, 09:41 AM
It's certainly true poor decisions by Twins management has wasted payroll. However,

1. Most of what is contained in Mackey's rant is unrelated to the Twins payroll. What the Yankees, or Phillies, pay their players, for example, isn't a factor in how much the Twins could, and should be spending. Drives up the cost of free agents? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the Twins available payroll. Nor, really, does spending poorly--but under budget--explain why they can't spend to budget. Are they so convinced their general manager doesn't know what he's doing that they took budget away to ensure it's not spent at all, rather than spent badly? Because they spent $11m badly, they forego spending entirely, even if money is available?

2. The Twins themselves have said, many times, they'll spend 52% of revenue (not "50%," 52). Unless Kelly Thesier can't be trusted, Jim Pohlad himself said that:

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090206&content_id=3805944&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min

So the issue isn't how much other teams are spending, or what they're spending it on, or the market size, the issue is, "are the Twins living up to the promises they've made to the fan base, and to the taxpayers who are paying for much of a new stadium?"

3. Any impartial look at available data indicates they haven't spend anywhere near 52% in at least 2 of the 3 seasons in TF, and barely exceeded it in one year. And that doesn't even address the legitimate question of whether or not they can afford to devote a higher percentage of revenue to payroll in TF than they could in the dome. Why would they need to devote tens of millions more to costs other than payroll now? Why was roughly $65m enough to fund everything other than payroll in the dome, but now they need $100m+?


1) They don't forego spending entirely, they just don't believe that organizationally they should be throwing big, long term money at pitching or at outside FA. TR has said publicly multiple times that the team would go over budget if they thought the move would benefit the team, so the Twins willingness to pay for people is there.

2) Good luck finding any organization that fullfills all promises made during the run for a new stadium. It's like a presidential election: say enough to get the public on your side, then deliver reality which always falls short.

3) I would love to see the "impartial data" that supports your theory that the Twins aren't spending 52%. The question of whether they can afford a higher % is moot as the Pohlads have decided that is the percentage they are willing to put to payroll. Considering the brainpower and dollars involved coming from a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, it's hard for little old me to say that 52% is too low. Operating costs are more than just running a stadium. I would be willing to bet there have been dollar increases in scouting, advertising, and yes, personal income for the Pohlads.

1. I'm not asking them to. I'm asking them to mostly live up to promises made.

2. This is a joke, right? It's wrong of me to expect them to treat fans honestly?

3. a. How many more times do you need to see it? b. You think? Let's start with doubling the value of their asset, to the tune of a cool 1/4 billion dollars.

JB_Iowa
08-13-2012, 09:46 AM
Re: TV Revenues

Don't you also have to look at demographics? Without knowing this for sure, my guess would be that the average age in the Twins' market is higher (maybe significantly higher) than those in the Dallas market. And I would bet that if you look at average age of actual viewers, the age is higher on FSN than for the Rangers as well. And OLDER translates into less advertising revenue.

I would also venture a guess that the Dallas market is an expanding market in terms of size . I doubt that is true of the Twins market.

I think both of those factors -- plus market size, plus other available outlets -- played a part in the size of the Twins TV deal.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 09:56 AM
Dallas Ft. Worth is almost double the size of the Twins Cities and is the fourth-largest metro market in the country behind the big three of NY, LA, and Chicago (all of which support multiple teams while Dallas has only the one).

Which doesn't have much to do with television markets.

I was looking at this.
http://www.deepintosports.com/2009/07/21/mlb-baseball-television-market-shars-tv-households-nielsen-dma-payroll/

And again while the Rangers certainly have a larger market, it's not like they have a market that's almost 3 times the size of the Twins' market. Given the deal FSNorth got, that's apparently how the Twins evaluated the situation.

I'm not arguing that the Twins shouldn't have received more money in their television deal. I'm only arguing your point that Dallas is comparable to the Twin Cities, which it most certainly is not.

In that list you provided, Dallas is just a few thousand households behind Boston, which has the most households once you factor out the multi-team markets of NY, LA, SF, and Chi. My statement still stands.

DPJ
08-13-2012, 09:56 AM
I'll ask once again, who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?

Harrison Greeley III
08-13-2012, 10:07 AM
Dallas Ft. Worth is almost double the size of the Twins Cities and is the fourth-largest metro market in the country behind the big three of NY, LA, and Chicago (all of which support multiple teams while Dallas has only the one).

Which doesn't have much to do with television markets.

I was looking at this.
http://www.deepintosports.com/2009/07/21/mlb-baseball-television-market-shars-tv-households-nielsen-dma-payroll/

And again while the Rangers certainly have a larger market, it's not like they have a market that's almost 3 times the size of the Twins' market. Given the deal FSNorth got, that's apparently how the Twins evaluated the situation.

I'm not arguing that the Twins shouldn't have received more money in their television deal. I'm only arguing your point that Dallas is comparable to the Twin Cities, which it most certainly is not.


Which I already conceded in the last post. I still think their proportions of size are not even close to matching the proportional distances between TV deals.

Matt Kummer
08-13-2012, 10:30 AM
I was also disappointed in the TV deal. I had hoped that they would end up more in the range of Detroit - about $35-$40 million per year. Given market size, $29 million still looks low given that it was a recently negotiated deal but I suspect that it was depressed by demographics and by the Twins lingering memory of how they screwed up on TV rights in the early 2000's..

Detroit is the #11 TV market in the country. Mpls/St. Paul is #15. $35-40M for the Tigers is probably about right. They also have an additional several hundred thousand people in the Windsor, Ontario area just across the border that are not counted in that figure.

Reginald Maudling's Shin
08-13-2012, 10:37 AM
I'll ask once again, who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?
Sports talk radio-Twin Cities style. Knockin' down those strawmen since the 90's.

Boom Boom
08-13-2012, 10:45 AM
I'll ask once again, who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?
Sports talk radio-Twin Cities style. Knockin' down those strawmen since the 90's.

Sports talk radio guy Mackey is knocking down his own straw man here. Most fans are smart enough to know that the Twins don't need to spend more money, they need to get better players.

DPJ
08-13-2012, 10:56 AM
Sports talk radio guy Mackey is knocking down his own straw man here. Most fans are smart enough to know that the Twins don't need to spend more money, they need to get better players.

WHAT?!?! Lazy reporting from a member of the Twins Cities sports media.

Color me shocked!

Winston Smith
08-13-2012, 10:57 AM
We never seem to run out of excuses, trees, schedule, injuries, umpires you name it. In the end the payroll numbers mean little if the decision making of the front office doesn't change. Terry, Billy and all the scouts remain the same, the coaching staff remains and yet we expect a new and better result?

John Bonnes
08-13-2012, 01:26 PM
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a _lazy_excuse081212


Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.
Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

~~~

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

John Bonnes
08-13-2012, 01:32 PM
I'll ask once again, who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?
Sports talk radio-Twin Cities style. Knockin' down those strawmen since the 90's.

To be fair, I don't think it's limited to the Twin Cities. I can speak for Philadelphia and a little for New York and Boston, all of which are great sport cities. This is a staple of all of them.

Ultima Ratio
08-13-2012, 01:52 PM
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a _lazy_excuse081212


Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.
Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

~~~

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.
Bingo John! Someone has studied logical fallacies. Good on ya!

edavis0308
08-13-2012, 02:04 PM
Should the different cities be looked at as solely the metro markets, or the whole blackout viewing market? Living in Des Moines, I have to deal with being in the Twins' 'market', yet the area defaults to the Cardinals on Mediacom. I feel like it is a relative point, as every area will have its own surrounding viewing area, but at least it should be brought up. The Rangers' only viewing competition off the top of my head is the Astros, whereas the Twins have to fight with the Brewers, Royals, Cardinals, Cubs, and White Sox.

Highabove
08-13-2012, 02:05 PM
Phil Mackey belittles his readers and listeners on a regular basis

Mackey will not take calls on his show and engage in respectful conversation with those who hold an opposing point of view.

Instead, he chooses to take his shots and move on. (Bomb Thrower)

Back on March 27th, Mackey tweeted, "I do question the intelligence of a lot of readers"

I checked out on his arrogance long ago.

Willihammer
08-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Actually the lazy thing is to blame management for gaffes that are obvious. The correlation between payroll and wins is sacrosand.

Teams don't release their financials, but we can estimate a ballteam's revenues based on previously leaked balance sheets. See deadspin series: http://deadspin.com/5615096

The attached spreadsheet uses bb-ref salary data which excludes bogus amortization player salary expense (a duplicate expense) that is expensed on the balance sheets. Teams accordingly spent an average of 36.46% of same-year revenues on player payroll. The range is large, but clearly in this sample the teams who spent more won more (see spreadsheet below).

Observing this, the Twins projected revenues for Target Field during 2010 and 2011 were 234m and 309m, respectively. Thus, their payroll would have been $117m in 2010 and $154m in 2011 if the purported 50% of estimated revenues spent on payroll, was accurate.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

Winston Smith
08-13-2012, 04:07 PM
"To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse."

Agree 100%

Highabove
08-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Darren Rovell CNBC

We all know that it's easier to make the playoffs in a sport without a salary cap if your team spends more money. More money allows you to acquire valuable free agents and make more mistakes in your talent evaluation and still recover.


http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__SPORTS/BASEBALL/mlb_baseballs_200.jpg



Getty Images




But how much more of an advantage is a larger payroll in Major League Baseball?
I looked at the final season payrolls from 2001-2010 and came up with these odds. Of the 78 teams who made the playoffs, 48 of them (61.5 percent) were among the top 10 highest spenders. Eighteen of them (23.1 percent) ranked in 11th to 20th in league payroll. And 12 playoff teams (15.4 percent) came out of the bottom third of payroll.
So by going from a team in the bottom third, to a team in the middle third, you increase your chances of being in the playoffs by 50 percent. By going from the middle third to the top third, you increase your chances of making the postseason by 166 percent.
This year, half the playoff teams (based on Opening Day payrolls) came from the top third of payrolls (Yankees and Tigers), while 1/4 of the playoff teams came from the middle (Cardinals and Brewers) and bottom of payrolls (Rays and Diamondbacks).
As for actually winning it all?
Out of the last 10 winners, 60 percent have come from the top third of payroll, while 40 percent came from the middle third. There haven't been any winners from the bottom third over the last decade.

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 05:39 PM
2012

drivlikejehu
08-13-2012, 05:46 PM
Actually the lazy thing is to blame management for gaffes that are obvious. The correlation between payroll and wins is sacrosand.

Teams don't release their financials, but we can estimate a ballteam's revenues based on previously leaked balance sheets. See deadspin series: http://deadspin.com/5615096

The attached spreadsheet uses bb-ref salary data which excludes bogus amortization player salary expense (a duplicate expense) that is expensed on the balance sheets. Teams accordingly spent an average of 36.46% of same-year revenues on player payroll. The range is large, but clearly in this sample the teams who spent more won more (see spreadsheet below).

Observing this, the Twins projected revenues for Target Field during 2010 and 2011 were 234m and 309m, respectively. Thus, their payroll would have been $117m in 2010 and $154m in 2011 if the purported 50% of estimated revenues spent on payroll, was accurate.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

I'm not seeing where any of those teams capitalized player salaries? Even if they did though, I'm not following how there is a 'duplicate expense.' Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

darin617
08-13-2012, 06:26 PM
Can any team be successful for more than a season or 2 when you have so much money wrapped up into 1 player? You could if that player put up Barry Bonds on juice numbers then it is fine...

USAFChief
08-13-2012, 07:51 PM
It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

~~~

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

Great post John.

Willihammer
08-13-2012, 08:07 PM
I'm not seeing where any of those teams capitalized player salaries? Even if they did though, I'm not following how there is a 'duplicate expense.' Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I pulled salaries from BB-Ref in all cases so as to be consistent because each balance sheet splices out expenses a little differently, but capitalization and amortization guidelines are spelled out in most cases.

From Pirates summarized balance sheet:


Player Contracts

Player contracts represent amounts paid to major and minor league players for signing bonuses, and are capitalized and amortized as player salaries and player development costs, respectively, over the contract period or length of time until the individual is eligible for free agency [straight line, usually]"

Rays Balance sheet: Note H (Useful life of player contracts ("Intangible Asset") 1-6 years

Angels Balance sheet: Note 2: Player contracts amortized using straight-line method over 3 years

Mariners Balance sheet: p. 6 (signing bonuses), p. 8 (contracts):


Player contracts are amortized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the respective players' contracts.

Rangers balance sheets: (I don't have excel at home, can't comment now, but a similar convention is used).

In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization.This is fine, but dont' claim that you're spending 50% of same year (or past year) revenues on player salaries when you're 'spending' a significant portion on amortization - esp. when A. This is very possibly not true, given the above data, and B. a significant portion of your amortization 'expense' is for players whose salaries expire pre or mid-peak of their careers. (and even more when you're enjoying a honeymoon with a new ballpark).

Again, my figures (pulled from deadspin leaks and BB-Ref) are available here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

Shane Wahl
08-13-2012, 08:15 PM
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a _lazy_excuse081212


Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.
Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

~~~

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

This is a damn good post.

drivlikejehu
08-13-2012, 08:42 PM
In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization. Standard practice when capitalizing an asset is to either A. record the cost up front in total, or B. record the cost each period as an amortized expense. Every MLB team among the deadspin leaks does both. In fact, in all cases the player salary line exceeds the bb-ref data, and on top of that the balance sheets expense amortization. This is duplicitous, and it is deceitful.


I know how it works, I'm just not seeing where some of your numbers are coming from. BR says the Mariners opening day 2008 payroll was $117.67 million, but your spreadsheet says $95.77 million?

I checked a few others that were OK, but they also don't include mid-season acquisitions. And another site has a different number for the 2008 Angels.

Roaddog
08-14-2012, 07:09 AM
I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?

old nurse
08-14-2012, 08:14 AM
I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?
Jack Morris might be the only free agent starting pitcher they ever signed that worked. Technically Cole Devries was a free agent

Willihammer
08-14-2012, 08:18 AM
In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization. Standard practice when capitalizing an asset is to either A. record the cost up front in total, or B. record the cost each period as an amortized expense. Every MLB team among the deadspin leaks does both. In fact, in all cases the player salary line exceeds the bb-ref data, and on top of that the balance sheets expense amortization. This is duplicitous, and it is deceitful.


I know how it works, I'm just not seeing where some of your numbers are coming from. BR says the Mariners opening day 2008 payroll was $117.67 million, but your spreadsheet says $95.77 million?

I checked a few others that were OK, but they also don't include mid-season acquisitions. And another site has a different number for the 2008 Angels.

E7: Willihammer. With that correction, the 2008 M's are the first and only team here to actually spend over 50% on payroll

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-S0lheDlDYXdadW8

Boom Boom
08-14-2012, 09:05 AM
I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?

Kenny Rogers in 2003?

kab21
08-14-2012, 11:57 AM
So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

USAFChief
08-14-2012, 12:00 PM
So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

kab21
08-14-2012, 12:05 PM
So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

Start naming names (contracts) or other ways that the Twins could have spent the money then. spending medium sized money in FA usually doesn't work. go big and get studs or look for bargains (like willingham).

I can think of one outstanding way for the Twins to spend money to improve the org. spend 11-12M on the draft and then spend nearly all of the int'l bonus pool. Wait a second... they did this...

USAFChief
08-14-2012, 12:12 PM
So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

Start naming names (contracts) or other ways that the Twins could have spent the money then. spending medium sized money in FA usually doesn't work. go big and get studs or look for bargains (like willingham).

I can think of one outstanding way for the Twins to spend money to improve the org. spend 11-12M on the draft and then spend nearly all of the int'l bonus pool. Wait a second... they did this...

So you post that there's no middle ground between "payroll anchors like Nishioka and Blackburn" and "diving head first into FA" ... And then turn around and provide an example of just such middle ground (Willingham) one post later?

Leaving money in ownerships hands "improves the organization"? How?

And one more time...Blackburn and Nishioka are not the issue. Just because you spent some of your payroll foolishly doesn't provide an excuse not to spend the rest. As a matter of fact, one could make the opposite argument.

Jim Crikket
08-14-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm 100% with Bonnes on this one.

I get tired of hearing fans/bloggers whine about the Pohlads not spending enough money. Their argument eventually comes down to feeling that ownership should not treat the Twins as a business, but because the family has enormous wealth, they should not hesitate to spend like the big-market teams do. That's an extreme view that I've pretty much learned to tune out because it serves no purpose in a reasonable discussion of the issues.

But all Mackey did was take the exact opposite, yet equally extreme view. "Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with (emphasis added) why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season."

That is every bit as absurd a statement as saying ownership should spend whatever it takes to buy the best FAs on the market.

Absolutely, there are damn good teams with $100 mil payrolls or less. Most, if not all, of them include a few minimum salary guys who are performing well above their pay grade. Few, if any, of them are paying 20-25% of their payrolls to a single player, which means they're able to pay more, on average, for each of their supporting cast of players. The Twins knew this (or should have known it anyway) when they gave Mauer his deal.

So tell me payroll isn't the only factor. Tell me it isn't the primary factor. Tell me you think most people believe payroll is a bigger factor than it really is. Tell me it's possible to win with a low payroll and show me that teams have done so. Make your case for specific other factors being more important. Point out instances of poor decision making and flat out bad luck that arguably would have resulted in keeping the Twins from being contenders. Those are all legitimate points to make and I may even agree with you on most, if not all, of them.

But anyone... whether professional reporter/media personality or not... who states a belief that payroll has "absolutely nothing" to do with losses on the field is risking his credibility as a journalist or even as a person with an opinion worth any level of consideration.

I think Phil writes some good stuff, but in this case, at best he chose his words very poorly in an effort to make what otherwise could have been a valid set of points. It's ironic that, in the process of accusing those of us who believe the Twins could spend a bit more money of being lazy, his own laziness negated any value his article might otherwise have had on this issue.

kab21
08-14-2012, 12:33 PM
what are you talking about? I'm asking you to IN HINDSIGHT go find mid tier FA's that you want on the team. CJ and Buehrle are having great years but I'm not interested at all in having either of these guys earning 15M at age 37. That is an anchor.

signing Willingham was very lucky. I liked the deal then and wish it easy to find more like him. Aramis Ramirez looks like a good get at 3/36. the Twins could have gotten another OF'er in Carlos Beltran who has been worth every penny on a 2 yr contract.

nokomismod
08-14-2012, 01:02 PM
I think the Twins ownership is in a unique situation right now. They have a chunk of their fanbase that is angry (I would argue disproportionately) about Mauer and the team not spending enough. There is another chunk of the fanbase that has tuned out after another bad season. I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient. Spend more than you normally would this offseason to ensure more positive revenues in the next 3 years.
Let's hope we don't get into the bind that Cleveland is in where the fans don't trust mgmt and the mgmt won't spend because the fans are not showing up anymore.

Willihammer
08-14-2012, 08:47 PM
I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient.

This is an astute idea.

The middle infield, starting pitching, and still to a degree, relief pitching is pour, and there is no immediate relief unless you accept waiver wire / Rule 5 guys who have failed the Twins during the 00s.

The J.J. Hardy trade may go down as the worst in recent memory.

But, there is evidence that the team is making a heavy profit, and that money is available. Who should be signed? I don't know. No one screams at me, but if a creative trade involving Span, Capps, and cash could be made for a young starting pitching several years under team control, that would go a long way to solving the Twins first problem.

Their 2nd problem I would argue (after aquiring an ace) is middle infield.

It is no coincidence the Orioles have managed an underdog role after picking up clockwork-guy Hardy to play SS (bank him for 7-11 defensive runs/year; ISO between .150 and .200).

kab21
08-15-2012, 12:17 AM
I think the Twins ownership is in a unique situation right now. They have a chunk of their fanbase that is angry (I would argue disproportionately) about Mauer and the team not spending enough. There is another chunk of the fanbase that has tuned out after another bad season. I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient. Spend more than you normally would this offseason to ensure more positive revenues in the next 3 years.
Let's hope we don't get into the bind that Cleveland is in where the fans don't trust mgmt and the mgmt won't spend because the fans are not showing up anymore.

Fans aren't going to support an expensive loser either (see the Mets). the key is turning the club into a winner and it appears that some are only interested in finding ways to get back to 80 wins even if it leaves future payrolls stuck with bad contracts.