I am SO friggin tired of the "don't spend just to spend" crap. You spend to put a better product on the field and win more games than if you don't spend. People that think unless you're challenging for a World Series title there's no point in spending any money have obviously never run a business. If the Twins won't spend enough to keep fans interested in attending games and buying merchandise in 2013, they'll have lower revenues and they'll use that as an excuse to keep an even lower cap on payroll in 2014. So much for the "save money this year to spend it next year" line of BS. It simply doesn't happen with this organization.
Why trade them all, because in 2015-2017 when we are ready to compete again , who is going to be left? Why not add some pirces now, i would rather watch kids develope , then to watch mulity millionaire loss 100 games.
First Time Poster Here who defended Mackey over at AM 1500.
1. The first question to ask is what the Team's True Talent Level. We've won 63 and 66 games the last two years. We also traded away nearly 7.5 WARP in Revere and Span. I realize the pitching probably couldn't be much worse. But it seems even the most optimistic gauges of the Team's True Talent Level would put it between (65-70 Games). Even accounting for Random Variation of perhaps 10 games either way. This doesn't place us real close to contention.
2. Could the Twins spend more money? Sure- I would never debate this. What I might question is whether this is the best idea. If you use the commonly assumed figure of 5 Million-6 Million Dollars for 1 WAR as cited by Dave Cameron this means spending an Extra 25 Million Dollars on Payroll only upgrades the team to a true talent level of 70-75 wins. The reality of this is the Twins are going to end up eating most of this money since they'll be hard pressed making this amount of money up at the gate. Even upgrading the payroll 50 Million Dollars. Still in most scenarios leaves them far from the playoffs.
3. Why not sign Maicer Izturis? I believe him to be better then the current option which is most likely Florimon. I happen to believe Florimon wouldn't hit enough to be a starting MLB Shortshop (Even with great defense). Yet if the Twins believe Florimon can be a long-term solution at the position (It's not absurd considering the value of Brendan Ryan) they may as well experiment. I would say the same thing about Plouffe (They're not finding anyone better in Free Agency). I'm not a Parmalee Fan but I'm alright with seeing what they have till Arcia is ready sometime in the next 18 months. Basically the types of players the Twins could acquire- I just don't see a lot of long-term gain from their acquistion. A guy like the Cuban Short-Stop Diaz (Would be a totally different story).
"Spend money just to spend money?" I'm not sure anyone has ever said that. Spending money to make the team better when the money is there is what a good gm does. We know they don't roll the unused payroll into future years so don't you owe the fans the best team you can afford to field?
Sitting on a bunch of payroll dollars and not giving the fans the best possible team to watch and support is simply BS!
The Twins are unlikely to have a payroll at $100 million again during the remainder of Joe Mauer's current contract. With the additional National tv money kicking in next year, club revenues will quite possibly reach an all-time high (with the possible exception of year 1 of Target Field).
Has anyone else noticed that nobody... NOBODY... in the Twins organization has uttered a word about the old, "we spend 50-52% of revenues on MLB payroll" line they've spouted about consistently for a generation? My guess is you'll never hear them say that again. The new model will be closer to 40% of revenue and/or they'll start claiming that the bonus money they pay to draftees and international signings have to be included, in addition to MLB payroll.
I've become convinced that this is the go-to rebuttal for people on the other side of this debate, even though it makes no sense and -- as you mentioned -- no one is saying that. Definition of a strawman that won't die. This became clear to me in the following exchange I had with Seth on the "Under-Delivering" thread (not to pick on you Seth, but I found this amusing):Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Smith
Originally Posted by Nick Nelson
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
It's not so much spending just to spend. It's managing your budget in a way that when Money is most needed (July/August of Contending Years, Free Agency with important need to fill) the money's there. I realize it's frustrating if you understand the money probably being sat on but I would argue a much better strategy is to save the money when a team has a much greater marginal value per win.
Humor me here...can someone explain why "spending just to spend" makes no sense?
While you're at it, explain to me why "not spending just to not spend" does make sense.
If you always do ,what you have always done.
you always get , what you have always gotten.
Think maybe it is time for a change?