PDA

View Full Version : The Marlins are Ridiculous... Or Are They? Baseball Econ 101



Curt
11-14-2012, 12:43 PM
How do we know if a team's payroll is too high or too low?

AFAIK, teams do not share their financial information with the public. None are publicly held, which would require disclosure. Not only do they not have to disclose the information, they do not have to be honest with what they do disclose.

What we might need to know is how does the payroll affect these...

1. The long-term value of the franchise? News flash... Most of the money made in baseball is made when the franchise is sold. Calvin Griffith cried about losing money most years then retired to his ranch when he sold his burden to poor Carl Pohlad for $44 Million. Poor Carl's $44 Million investment was worth $510 Million the last time Forbes estimated it (which comes to 9.14% annualized for 28 years. The Yankees went from $8.8 Million when Steinbrenner bought them in '73 to $1.85 Billion in 2012, 14.7% annualized for 39 years!).

2. The franchise's short-term profit? Short-term profit might keep investors from having to hire younger, less-expensive yacht staff (which need to be trained) and might help long-term value (see above). Lack of short-term profit does not necessarily kill reason #1 (see above about Calvin).

3. Winning. This is important in so far as it helps the reasons stated above. But winning is not the only path to success. Just look at the Cubs (sold for $21M in 1981 and for $845M in 2009 or 14.1% annualized for 28 years).

As fans we want our teams to win. Ownership just might have a slightly different take on it.

Cody Christie
11-15-2012, 07:13 AM
It seems like the Marlins are going to continue to be run like this until they get a new ownership group.

beckmt
11-15-2012, 07:55 AM
Which is why the Twins should inquire on RIcky Nolasco(Stopgap1 to 2 years). I would offer like a Joe Benson as all Miami may want is salary relief. Outside of that they need a new ownership group.

allenmarton
12-20-2012, 11:45 PM
hi all
nice post.i like this forum very much

Rosterman
12-20-2012, 11:59 PM
You will lose just as many games with a $100 million payroll as a $30 million payroll. Will the Twins actually do better this year with a $75 million payroll?

Rosterman
12-21-2012, 12:01 AM
How come we don't know how much money the staff makes, even coaches. What is Terry Ryan paid, or Dave. St. Peter. What do the minor leagues cost to operate: personnel vs. real estate/equipment. hat is the true operational costs for tickets/sales, advertising, media. How much do the Twins generate in advertising revenue. What percentage comes from corporate sponsorships.

Top Gun
12-21-2012, 12:15 AM
The Marlins could beat the Twins pretty easily.

SpantheMan
12-21-2012, 01:22 AM
The Marlins could beat the Twins pretty easily.

That is just depressing. But i think I would take the 2015 twins over 2015 marlins so there's that.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-21-2012, 01:55 PM
How come we don't know how much money the staff makes, even coaches. What is Terry Ryan paid, or Dave. St. Peter. What do the minor leagues cost to operate: personnel vs. real estate/equipment. hat is the true operational costs for tickets/sales, advertising, media. How much do the Twins generate in advertising revenue. What percentage comes from corporate sponsorships.
Because it is a private company.

James
12-21-2012, 03:01 PM
How come we don't know how much money the staff makes, even coaches. What is Terry Ryan paid, or Dave. St. Peter. What do the minor leagues cost to operate: personnel vs. real estate/equipment. hat is the true operational costs for tickets/sales, advertising, media. How much do the Twins generate in advertising revenue. What percentage comes from corporate sponsorships.
How much money do you make a year? Why can't the rest of us know?

For the record, I don't really want to know. But as vodkadave said, it's a private company. They don't have to disclose anything at all if they don't want to, just like you don't have to disclose that sort of thing to me or the rest of the TD community.

The minor league costs are a little different, because minor league teams are generally not owned by the MLB team (with a few exceptions). So, there you're asking for financial information from more than one private company.

If you want to look at financial statements for some teams, some of them were leaked a while ago. The Twins were not one of them though. You're not going to get actual numbers for how much the GM made, but you might get an idea of how much they pay the entire front office.

MLB Confidential: The Financial Documents Baseball Doesn't Want You To See, Part 1 (http://deadspin.com/5615096/mlb-confidential-the-financial-documents-baseball-doesnt-want-you-to-see-part-1)

gil4
12-21-2012, 03:23 PM
hi all



Allen is on the board with post #1. Hi Allen. Welcome! (I'm trying to pad my numbers - only about 35,000* posts to catch VodkaDave.)



* - Estimate - might be slightly high.

kab21
12-21-2012, 08:37 PM
The Marlins could beat the Twins pretty easily.

Stanton can only hit once in the order so this isn't close to true.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-22-2012, 12:17 PM
How much money do you make a year? Why can't the rest of us know?

For the record, I don't really want to know. But as vodkadave said, it's a private company. They don't have to disclose anything at all if they don't want to, just like you don't have to disclose that sort of thing to me or the rest of the TD community.

The minor league costs are a little different, because minor league teams are generally not owned by the MLB team (with a few exceptions). So, there you're asking for financial information from more than one private company.

If you want to look at financial statements for some teams, some of them were leaked a while ago. The Twins were not one of them though. You're not going to get actual numbers for how much the GM made, but you might get an idea of how much they pay the entire front office.

MLB Confidential: The Financial Documents Baseball Doesn't Want You To See, Part 1 (http://deadspin.com/5615096/mlb-confidential-the-financial-documents-baseball-doesnt-want-you-to-see-part-1)
This isn't obviously directed at you:

But...one thing I find annoying is people constantly complaining about owners wanting to "make" money. Sure, it would be nice if the Pohlads could just throw around money and not care about profits, but at the end of the day it is a business. If someone doesn't like the product, then stop going/watching. Reading thread after thread about how much people think the Twins payroll should be etc gives me some serious tired head.

Top Gun
12-22-2012, 12:43 PM
Then try soaking your head.

Riverbrian
12-22-2012, 01:51 PM
Then try soaking your head.

lol.. Gun... You obviously have a strong negative feeling about our Twins.

Fire Dan Gladden
12-22-2012, 06:29 PM
I always wonder about the individuals that constantly complain about the Twins regardless of the move or situation. I mean, why even bother putting so much time and effort into a team if you can't enjoy it sometimes?

As someone once said "Just be glad you don't wake up in the morning with the same outlook on life as them."

beckmt
12-22-2012, 06:37 PM
Twins need to come close to breaking even. They still have some bills from the building of the statium. Payroll will likely be between $80 - $85, plenty if you are rebuilding without saying you are rebuilding. Twins will need to spend extra money in 2- 3 years when hopefully the farm system brings enough talent to be competitive for at least division titles.

Thrylos
12-22-2012, 07:39 PM
What should be added in the original statement is that using their strategy the Marlins won 2 World Championships since the Twins won their last. So, at least their way has been more effective that the Twins' way.
Fact.

Riverbrian
12-22-2012, 08:22 PM
Thrylos is back... With extra juice!!!

biggentleben
12-22-2012, 08:30 PM
What should be added in the original statement is that using their strategy the Marlins won 2 World Championships since the Twins won their last. So, at least their way has been more effective that the Twins' way.
Fact.

Not fact. The current ownership group took over in 2002. The pieces to that 2003 team were already there when they took over. So the current ownership's strategy has won them 87 games in 2009, but other than that, their building has left the organization with a sub .500 record, even with the championship season.

Top Gun
12-22-2012, 08:42 PM
Maybe the Twins need new ownership then.

darin617
12-22-2012, 11:03 PM
Because it is a private company.

Here is a really good question that cannot be answered. How can MLB teams call themselves a private company when a high percentage have their stadiums paid for with public funds(taxpayers). They should make all teams that have received public money for stadiums to open up their books and make them public to show how bad they really needed help to pay for their stadiums.

Like that would ever happen! Could you imagine how terrified owners would be if they had to show the books about how much money they really make.

kab21
12-23-2012, 12:54 AM
The Twins getting a stadium isn't much different from all of the deals that are made to attract big businesses (like cheap land or major infrastructure improvements). The Twins just have more visibility.

I've said it in another thread but I don't really have a problem with what the Marlins did. They were terrible and they got rid of two BIG contracts and a guy that was a FA in a year. Some dismiss the prospects that they got back but there are a couple top 100 prospects in the deal.

It sucks that it happened a year after the Marlins opened a new stadium but most of that is due the Marlins having no plan. They just signed those two BIG contracts last season due to opening the new stadium.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-23-2012, 09:37 AM
The Twins getting a stadium isn't much different from all of the deals that are made to attract big businesses (like cheap land or major infrastructure improvements). The Twins just have more visibility.



Thank you!
This is very true and exactly spot on.

Who cares anyways? I could care less if the Pohlads make 1 dollar or 100 million dollars a year, all I care about is the team. The Pohlads have no obligation to spend X amount of revenue each yeah on players. Like any other business in America they have to make sure they spend enough to keep customers coming back though.

birdwatcher
12-23-2012, 10:00 AM
If all things were fair and equal (TV and stadium revenues, etc.), and the ONLY focus was on winning the World Series, then each team would win one pennant during a thirty year cycle.

Since things are not and never will be fair and equal, exactly how often would you expect a WS pennant victory?

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-23-2012, 10:07 AM
If all things were fair and equal (TV and stadium revenues, etc.), and the ONLY focus was on winning the World Series, then each team would win one pennant during a thirty year cycle.

Since things are not and never will be fair and equal, exactly how often would you expect a WS pennant victory?
Every 20-25 years seems about right to me.

darin617
12-23-2012, 11:18 AM
The Twins getting a stadium isn't much different from all of the deals that are made to attract big businesses (like cheap land or major infrastructure improvements). The Twins just have more visibility.

I've said it in another thread but I don't really have a problem with what the Marlins did. They were terrible and they got rid of two BIG contracts and a guy that was a FA in a year. Some dismiss the prospects that they got back but there are a couple top 100 prospects in the deal.

It sucks that it happened a year after the Marlins opened a new stadium but most of that is due the Marlins having no plan. They just signed those two BIG contracts last season due to opening the new stadium.

The thing that should bug you about the Marlins trading all those players is really simple, they never intended to keep any of them long term. All contracts were back loaded so Miami didn't have to pay much of their salaries and dumped them on to whoever would take them on for prospects.

70charger
12-27-2012, 02:18 PM
If all things were fair and equal (TV and stadium revenues, etc.), and the ONLY focus was on winning the World Series, then each team would win one pennant during a thirty year cycle.

Since things are not and never will be fair and equal, exactly how often would you expect a WS pennant victory?


That's not true. For example, there are 20 wedges on a dart board. If you threw 20 darts at it randomly, would you really expect to hit all 20 wedges?

Randomness usually doesn't look random.

nicksaviking
12-27-2012, 03:12 PM
Thank you!
This is very true and exactly spot on.

Who cares anyways? I could care less if the Pohlads make 1 dollar or 100 million dollars a year, all I care about is the team. The Pohlads have no obligation to spend X amount of revenue each yeah on players. Like any other business in America they have to make sure they spend enough to keep customers coming back though.

Well which is it, do you care about the team, or do you not feel the Pohlad's are obligated to assemble a proper one?

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-27-2012, 03:36 PM
Well which is it, do you care about the team, or do you not feel the Pohlad's are obligated to assemble a proper one?
I care about the team, I just have a basic understanding of how businesses work.

The "Durr durr the Pohlad's are cheap" drivel gets really old, when in fact they have shown an ability to spend over 100 million a year when they feel it's warranted, I believe a couple years ago they were one of the top 8 or 10 payrolls in all of baseball.

Good lord, people act like we are in the middle of the 1993-2000 days again, give me a break.

nicksaviking
12-27-2012, 04:03 PM
Right, but they are doing their damnedest to make sure having a top ten payroll is NOT warrented now or in the near future. It's unneccisarily affecting the 2013 team, so again, do you care more about having a competitive team, or do you care more about justifying the Pohlad's lawful right to not field one?

You seem to be ignoring the opposite side of the coin. If the Pohlad's have every right to lower payroll as they deem fit, why do the fans and tax payers who funded their cash cow not have the right to call into question their motives?

kab21
12-27-2012, 07:11 PM
Right, but they are doing their damnedest to make sure having a top ten payroll is NOT warrented now or in the near future. It's unneccisarily affecting the 2013 team, so again, do you care more about having a competitive team, or do you care more about justifying the Pohlad's lawful right to not field one?

You seem to be ignoring the opposite side of the coin. If the Pohlad's have every right to lower payroll as they deem fit, why do the fans and tax payers who funded their cash cow not have the right to call into question their motives?

Teams get rid of aging veterans and try to limit signing aging veterans when they rebuild. That's why payroll goes down. It sucks that the Twins are bad but going nuts in FA isn't going to turn this team into a contender unless you go nuts like the Dodgers.

Thrylos
12-27-2012, 07:20 PM
It seems like the Marlins are going to continue to be run like this until they get a new ownership group.

And the Marlins won two World Championships since the Twins won their last one...

kab21
12-27-2012, 08:18 PM
And the Marlins won two World Championships since the Twins won their last one...

luck? Those teams had a good core and they knew when to throw their chips in and they got lucky. they tried a similar approach last year signing a bunch of vets and their team crashed and burned. That was their occasional go for it and now they are in terrible shape.

johnnydakota
12-27-2012, 08:44 PM
hi all
nice post.i like this forum very much

Welcome and Happy New Years

johnnydakota
12-27-2012, 08:51 PM
Maybe the Twins need new ownership then.

Maybe? hmmmm Well they tried to move and sell the team, they tried to contract the team , then they held the fans and state hostage for a new shinny stadium. This year jim pohlad said money was no object , while Ryan was planning to reduce payroll to collect his end of the year bonus ....for reducing payroll

johnnydakota
12-27-2012, 08:54 PM
Every 20-25 years seems about right to me.

the babys born after our last world championship , are now bar hopping , me thinks its time for another ring soon

biggentleben
12-27-2012, 09:57 PM
And the Marlins won two World Championships since the Twins won their last one...

The current ownership team has not built a championship team. They've just torn one apart. They had nothing to do with 1997 or the aftermath.

twins4121
12-28-2012, 04:20 AM
We need a Mark Cuban to come sweep up the Twins in the next decade. if the NBA didn't have a cap he'd be spending like a MA-F++++, Cubs fans had some hope there for a while when speculation was swirling that he was looking into buying them

old nurse
12-28-2012, 07:51 AM
We need a Mark Cuban to come sweep up the Twins in the next decade. if the NBA didn't have a cap he'd be spending like a MA-F++++, Cubs fans had some hope there for a while when speculation was swirling that he was looking into buying them

Yet the Cubs are proof that spending money does not win championships. See also the Mets.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-28-2012, 09:48 AM
Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.

Fire Dan Gladden
12-28-2012, 10:11 AM
Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.

Why? Because he would spend money in any way to make his team better? Because he makes huge efforts to keep his fan base and employees happy? Because he is not afraid to say what is on his mind, regardless of whether it is PC or not?

I would love to see Cuban as an owner in baseball.

ThePuck
12-28-2012, 02:07 PM
Why? Because he would spend money in any way to make his team better? Because he makes huge efforts to keep his fan base and employees happy? Because he is not afraid to say what is on his mind, regardless of whether it is PC or not?

I would love to see Cuban as an owner in baseball.

I agree with you, he'd be great...but Reinsdorf wields some serious weight in the game and he doesn't want him as an MLB owner.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-28-2012, 06:59 PM
Because he is a buffoon who would ruin the game.

None of the owners want Cuban in.

ThePuck
12-28-2012, 07:28 PM
Because he is a buffoon who would ruin the game.

None of the owners want Cuban in.

Yeah, a buffoon...that he started as a bartender and has made himself into a billionaire. Yeah, what a buffoon...
And the Mavericks are obviously worse off with him as their owner, considering they haven't missed the playoffs since he bought them in 2000. He IS passionate about his team, though, and is willing to do what it takes for them to win. It'd be HORRIBLE to have that kind of owner...

Riverbrian
12-28-2012, 09:34 PM
Mark Cuban owner... No way Ozzie Guillen would be his coach... After the Castro comments... Cubans don't like Ozzie... (Rim shot)...

Sorry about that... It came into my head and I typed it.

biggentleben
12-28-2012, 09:56 PM
Mark Cuban would be great for baseball for the following reasons: he would get Bud out, he would not accept the "old boys club" secret society that is so secretive about the finances of teams, and he would be a driving owner in finally getting certain baseball issues solved (i.e. DH either in both leagues or in neither league - I favor neither, but that's my love for pitching and defense showing through).

Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball for the following reasons: he would remove a LOT of the "gentleman" aspect of baseball, he would be the type of owner who would encourage an on-field fight, and he'd likely set the market even more skewed against small market teams.

twins4121
12-29-2012, 02:59 AM
Yet the Cubs are proof that spending money does not win championships. See also the Mets.

27 words for you... New York Yankees

old nurse
12-29-2012, 09:29 AM
27 words for you... New York Yankees

One example for you, two for me. Only 6 of the 27 championships have come in the last 50 years. TBuying players does not win you championships.

snepp
12-29-2012, 09:48 AM
Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.

For all the reasons already stated by others, you're wrong.

TheLeviathan
12-29-2012, 11:55 AM
I don't understand the anti-Cuban hate. Why is he such an awful dude? To me he's just a straight shooter, I've never understood why he's such a cancer.

Oxtung
12-30-2012, 02:01 AM
I care about the team, I just have a basic understanding of how businesses work.

The "Durr durr the Pohlad's are cheap" drivel gets really old, when in fact they have shown an ability to spend over 100 million a year when they feel it's warranted, I believe a couple years ago they were one of the top 8 or 10 payrolls in all of baseball.

Good lord, people act like we are in the middle of the 1993-2000 days again, give me a break.

According to Nygaard's payroll page the Twins obligations for 2013 is currently $72 million. In 2012 that would have put the Twins 24th out of 30 teams. So yes, it currently is like the late '90s. Except now the public just paid $350 million for Target Field. I believe there is an obligation to the tax payers of Hennepin County. The idea that it doesn't matter if the Twins cut payroll and pocket the difference is insulting. I think the most frustrating thing is there is no reason to be slashing payroll to the extent, and by extension not signing good FA's, that the Twins have. Bringing in crappy players because they're cheap doesn't help develop your minor league talent. Signing Correia instead of Marcum doesn't mean that Meyer will be ready to pitch this year instead of next year. The only reason I can see to NOT be spending the money is because either A) you want to increase your short term profits or B) you intentionally want to put a poorer product on the field.

Oxtung
12-30-2012, 02:10 AM
Yet the Cubs are proof that spending money does not win championships. See also the Mets.

Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.

Top Gun
12-30-2012, 07:35 AM
The Kansas City Star's Bob Dutton doesn't expect the Royals to sign free agent starter Shaun Marcum.

The Royals have previously been linked to Marcum, but Dutton believes he'll ultimately be out of their price range. Marcum, who turned 31 years old earlier this month, has also drawn interest from the Twins and Padres. He's known to be seeking a two-year deal in free agency.
Related: Royals (http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/clubhouse/mlb/kc%20/royals)

Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Royals_Report/status/285056978470989825)

Riverbrian
12-30-2012, 08:51 AM
Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.

This is a good Post Ox... I can't disagree with anything you say... I'll just tack on some obvious stuff.
I think spending money wisely is key... Any baseball team can take a voyage on the USS Good Money Over Bad and its not a good ship to be on.

Spending it... Just to reach some top 10 tier so you are sucked in by the correlation winds would be miss guided.

I think the timing of when you spend is an important factor... Personally.... I seriously question the timing of spending for 2013.

I still want Marcum... But I'm not going to watch the payroll tote board. That's just me... Others obviously feel different.

Shane Wahl
12-30-2012, 09:35 AM
According to Nygaard's payroll page the Twins obligations for 2013 is currently $72 million. In 2012 that would have put the Twins 24th out of 30 teams. So yes, it currently is like the late '90s. Except now the public just paid $350 million for Target Field. I believe there is an obligation to the tax payers of Hennepin County. The idea that it doesn't matter if the Twins cut payroll and pocket the difference is insulting. I think the most frustrating thing is there is no reason to be slashing payroll to the extent, and by extension not signing good FA's, that the Twins have. Bringing in crappy players because they're cheap doesn't help develop your minor league talent. Signing Correia instead of Marcum doesn't mean that Meyer will be ready to pitch this year instead of next year. The only reason I can see to NOT be spending the money is because either A) you want to increase your short term profits or B) you intentionally want to put a poorer product on the field.

Pretty succinctly put for a large issue!

One word I don't believe to be in your post is "investment." I see the Twins as simply not investing in the organization when it holds on to millions of bucks for whatever reason (is it really just greed on the part of billionaire owners who must laugh at the residents of Hennepin County every day???). It isn't like signing Shaun Marcum or whoever merely means that they may get to 80 wins and put more people in the seats. It also means that they could trade Marcum to a real contender at the deadline in 2013 or 2014 in return for a prospect. It isn't a bad idea to look at FA signings not merely as improvements for the team, but as flippable players (or it provides the possibility of trading other players) for future talent.

Shane Wahl
12-30-2012, 09:38 AM
This is a good Post Ox... I can't disagree with anything you say... I'll just tack on some obvious stuff.
I think spending money wisely is key... Any baseball team can take a voyage on the USS Good Money Over Bad and its not a good ship to be on.

Spending it... Just to reach some top 10 tier so you are sucked in by the correlation winds would be miss guided.

I think the timing of when you spend is an important factor... Personally.... I seriously question the timing of spending for 2013.

I still want Marcum... But I'm not going to watch the payroll tote board. That's just me... Others obviously feel different.

I have grown tired of this "spend it just to spend it" mantra from people around here. Who the hell is saying that? First, spending money to make money isn't a bad business idea. Second, putting a more successful team on the field makes your team more attractive to other free agents. Third, spending money on free agents and then trading for prospects is a smart move and it just takes an initial investment to have that capacity to build for the future. This involves taking on risk, yes, but so what? No business is successful without taking those kinds of risks.

TheLeviathan
12-30-2012, 09:40 AM
The Kansas City Star's Bob Dutton doesn't expect the Royals to sign free agent starter Shaun Marcum.

The Royals have previously been linked to Marcum, but Dutton believes he'll ultimately be out of their price range. Marcum, who turned 31 years old earlier this month, has also drawn interest from the Twins and Padres. He's known to be seeking a two-year deal in free agency.
Related: Royals (http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/clubhouse/mlb/kc%20/royals)

Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Royals_Report/status/285056978470989825)

Hey....there is the guy we know!

old nurse
12-30-2012, 10:04 AM
Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.

If I had a dollar for every time someone on this board ripped on the Twins and Gardenhire for not winning a championship I might be retired. That is why I referred to championships and not winning. Now it is good enough to be a winning team? It is not the spending per se that gets you the wins. See the 2012 Philies, Marlins, Red Sox. as examples of spending that did not get wins. Injuries negates the spending. Disfunction negates the spending. Not having any decent players to go along with your spended upon players renders it meaningless. There are a ton of slightly better than crappy players the Twins could have spent their money on. They would not make the team significantly better.

Oxtung
12-30-2012, 11:51 AM
If I had a dollar for every time someone on this board ripped on the Twins and Gardenhire for not winning a championship I might be retired. That is why I referred to championships and not winning. Now it is good enough to be a winning team? It is not the spending per se that gets you the wins. See the 2012 Philies, Marlins, Red Sox. as examples of spending that did not get wins. Injuries negates the spending. Disfunction negates the spending. Not having any decent players to go along with your spended upon players renders it meaningless. There are a ton of slightly better than crappy players the Twins could have spent their money on. They would not make the team significantly better.

You can keep stating that spending is bad because the Phillies, Red Sox, etc... did not play well last year but when you look at the league as a whole the spenders win more than the non spenders. So yeah, spending might not significantly improve the Twins 2013 playoff chances, of course it might we don't know, but immediate success isn't the only point of spending in 2013. I would point you to Shane's post #56 as to other reasons spending is beneficial. Not spending does nothing to help your club. It only helps you bottom line short term.

old nurse
12-30-2012, 01:49 PM
You can keep stating that spending is bad because the Phillies, Red Sox, etc... did not play well last year but when you look at the league as a whole the spenders win more than the non spenders. So yeah, spending might not significantly improve the Twins 2013 playoff chances, of course it might we don't know, but immediate success isn't the only point of spending in 2013. I would point you to Shane's post #56 as to other reasons spending is beneficial. Not spending does nothing to help your club. It only helps you bottom line short term.


WTF. where did I ever say bad? Spending per se is not going to fix the problems of the 2013 Twins. At this point you have someone who is a fourth outfielders in Mastro playing center. Parmalee in right, Carrol another utility player at 2 or short along with someone who is a replacement level player. With two players who were good in a utility role starting you now have no bench. 3 base is debatable. That is a hell of a lot of question mark positions on a team. Yes I hope this spring that Benson, Hicks and Arcia play so well they can't be sent down. I don't even think it is unreasonable to hope that. What the heck was out there for middle infielders? Drew? From what I read, good bat, declining defense due to injuries. Is that a wise investment? Was there any other middle infielder out there worth spending money on that was going to improve the team long term? Long term with the pitching and spending money is a different thread. Read what the fellow Twins daily people had to say before the market started.
Twins Daily - Deep Starting Pitching Market Is A Lucky Break For Twins (http://twinsdaily.com/1049-deep-starting-pitching-market-lucky-break-twins-comments2.html#comments)
Some people's opinions have changed.

Is a long term contract with a pitcher with a sustained record of near .500 winning percentage and an ERA well over 4 really going to help your team long term? Is the average fan going to get excited about that?

You sign free agents to fix a couple of spots on your roster, not rebuild the whole roster.

Shane Wahl
12-30-2012, 02:25 PM
WTF. where did I ever say bad? Spending per se is not going to fix the problems of the 2013 Twins. At this point you have someone who is a fourth outfielders in Mastro playing center. Parmalee in right, Carrol another utility player at 2 or short along with someone who is a replacement level player. With two players who were good in a utility role starting you now have no bench. 3 base is debatable. That is a hell of a lot of question mark positions on a team. Yes I hope this spring that Benson, Hicks and Arcia play so well they can't be sent down. I don't even think it is unreasonable to hope that. What the heck was out there for middle infielders? Drew? From what I read, good bat, declining defense due to injuries. Is that a wise investment? Was there any other middle infielder out there worth spending money on that was going to improve the team long term? Long term with the pitching and spending money is a different thread. Read what the fellow Twins daily people had to say before the market started.
Twins Daily - Deep Starting Pitching Market Is A Lucky Break For Twins (http://twinsdaily.com/1049-deep-starting-pitching-market-lucky-break-twins-comments2.html#comments)
Some people's opinions have changed.

Is a long term contract with a pitcher with a sustained record of near .500 winning percentage and an ERA well over 4 really going to help your team long term? Is the average fan going to get excited about that?

You sign free agents to fix a couple of spots on your roster, not rebuild the whole roster.

Adding one FA pitcher right now (I think the other good one was acquired in the Revere trade) such as Marcum (Lohse aside from past history would have been best for the price) helps out dramatically. I don't worry immediately about the Mastro situation or the MI situation. Teams can win without such things settled at the beginning of the season.

Anyway, I am not sure how to respond to you without referring to a previous post. The average fan is going to be able to tell the difference between Marcum and Correia. Also, again, investing in such free agents doesn't mean you are stuck with them. Trading them for 2014 and beyond talent is one option. No one is talking about spending just to spend (this notion is really driving me crazy around here) and there certainly are better ways for the Twins to be spending the $75ish million or whatever that they already are spending ($14 million between Correia, Blackburn, and Pelfrey!!).

old nurse
12-30-2012, 03:52 PM
Marcum, if healthy, has talent. Is he Carl Pavano of 2010 for this team or Pavano 2012? If you think he is going to contribute like he can, then he would be a good signing. Is Marcum for 3/4 of a year and Sam Deduno for 1/4 of the year a way to rebuild?
At a pay site that I don't pay for there is an article about how long TJ surgery lasts. They were quoted as Kerry Woods pitched the longest before needing a second TJ or retiring at 876 innings. Marcum is over 500 innings. Why do you suppose the Brewers are not interested in him? They know him best medically.
To dismiss the position player dilemma as can be sorted out later in a thread about spending money is interesting. The concept of spending money on starting pitching and the Twins issues with it is in another thread.
Trading signed free agents brings very little in return unless they are high quality. Why would you trade high quality. Just say the Twins went crazy and bid up Edwin Jackson. 4/56. For the season Worley, Pelfrey and Diamond come through and pitched near like they have in their best seasons. Mays and Meyers look ready. Wimmers looks healed. To trade Jackson would be a choice. He pitches like he always has. How much of that contract do you think the Twins would have to eat?

snepp
12-30-2012, 04:09 PM
Don't sign good players, because if everything works out perfectly you won't need them, and you'll end up with too many good ones.

ThePuck
12-30-2012, 05:29 PM
Don't sign good players, because if everything works out perfectly you won't need them, and you'll end up with too many good ones.

Yeah, that'd be a crying shame :-)

Like you, it always cracks me up to see people aggressively saying that the team SHOULDN'T go get players to make the team better...you know, aggressively defending the team's payroll cutting for a 2nd year in a row after two horrific seasons. Just boggles my mind. In this case, as if it's a guarantee Mays and Meyer work out and are good, that Gibson is very good, etc.

If you end up with too much pitching talent(which we are in no danger of whatsoever), then that's awesome and maybe someday we can do what Tampa does, trade that for other needs using the pitching. Again though, there's no reason to believe we'll be in that situation any time soon...

old nurse
12-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Don't sign good players, because if everything works out perfectly you won't need them, and you'll end up with too many good ones.
You are correct in that they can't sign too many good players. The definition of good on these pages varies greatly on what constitutes a good player. This is especially true in the pitching department. So what is your definition of a good player beyond someone who did not sign with the Twins?