Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

The Marlins are Ridiculous... Or Are They? Baseball Econ 101

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,463 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.

#42 Fire Dan Gladden

Fire Dan Gladden

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 28 December 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.

#43 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 28 December 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.

#44 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,463 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

Because he is a buffoon who would ruin the game.

None of the owners want Cuban in.

#45 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 28 December 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...

#46 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,185 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 28 December 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.

#47 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 28 December 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.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#48 twins4121

twins4121

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 29 December 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

#49 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,463 posts

Posted 29 December 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.

#50 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,513 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.


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

#51 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,678 posts

Posted 29 December 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.

#52 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 30 December 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.

#53 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 30 December 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.

#54 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 30 December 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

Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter

#55 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,185 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 30 December 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.

#56 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,804 posts

Posted 30 December 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.

#57 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,804 posts

Posted 30 December 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.

#58 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,678 posts

Posted 30 December 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

Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter


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

#59 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,463 posts

Posted 30 December 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.

#60 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 30 December 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.