To be fair, some people are saying both those things.
But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.
To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.
When fans advocate an acquisition or a trade, they tend to provide significant statistical support.When they advocate the Twins SHOULD spend more there is generally little or no supporting evidence. It’s actually a more straight forward assessment.Is the Twins spending consistent with the rest of the league?Are their profits greater than the norm for the rest of the league?Assuming Forbes is a credible source, the answer is no.This fact has been posted here several times.
All of the failed contracts have also been listed.Even now after the OP did a great job of illustrating just how often these contracts fail, some still cling to the premise the failed contracts won’t hurt the team as if there is no better way to spend the money which I outlined earlier in this thread as well as others.
It’s pretty simple in concept.We have considerably less revenue than several teams.If we are going to compete with those teams we have to get the most out of every available dollar.Some of the top teams could sign 5 or 6 elite free agents and still have our available payroll left over.The real failure of the previous regime is they did not build the requisite analytics, scouting, and operating practices needed to get the most out of our available dollars.
I would sure like to see one of the posters who constantly complain about the Twins spending to provide evidence that the Twins spending practices are different than the rest of the league.The simple reality is that other teams have significantly more revenue and we should be debating what is the best way to overcome that disadvantage.
Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 06 November 2017 - 08:43 AM.