Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Time To Step Up

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#31 mikeee

mikeee

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 815 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

[quote name='AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS'][quote name='USAFChief'][quote name='old nurse']Easy to spend someone else's money.
[/QUOTE]

Sure is. Just look at how easy it was for the Pohlads to spend a half billion of other people's money on their new stadium.

What's hard seems to be for them to spend their own money.[/QUOTE]

Pohlads will never spend their own money to improve this team. The day they do is when pigs fly.[/QUOTE]

They did a lot better than Calvin Griffith.

#32 Linus

Linus

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:52 PM

I am very impatient. I really liked some of the recent offseasons where the wheels were in motion immediately. I have to applaud our old friend Bill Smith in that regard, he was off and running as soon as the World Series ended. That Hardy-Gomez deal happened in early November... as did the infamous Garza-Young swap.


God I hope this is sarcasm......

#33 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.


So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.

#34 Linus

Linus

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:56 PM

I hate to beat a dead horse but I'm going to do it anyway.

We all saw the Blue Jays make a big trade. They are taking on a lot of salary but they want to compete and they want to win. They are now rumored to be targeting another starter, such as Edwin Jackson or Zach Grienke. With almost every free agent or trade target you are sure to hear Toronto mentioned.

The Twins haven't made an impact trade or signing yet and it's discouraging. It's not that I'm impatient but since there has already been several players the Twins have been rumored to have interested in come off the board, I can't help but think that they aren't really serious about improving this team. I have the sinking feeling that they will continue to undervalue players and not she'll out what it takes to bring in quality players via trade or free agency. It is time that the owners and front office step up and pay the price to field a winner. They have to make realistic offers in trades and they need to offer a real contract to a top end free agent. It's really aggravating to see the Blue Jays doing what Twins fans want and deserve since Target Field has been built and we show up to watch the AAA guys play.


Um, yes you are impatient.....its not even Thanksgiving.

#35 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.


So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.


If money is borrowed it is against their assets. They put their money into it. 125 million more than you did. Why are being the east end of a horse going west about this?

#36 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,890 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.


So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.


"Get your money for nothing, chicks for free".......sure why not. Posted Image

#37 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:47 PM

[quote name='twinsnorth49'][quote name='USAFChief'][quote name='twinsnorth49']They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment. [/QUOTE]

So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.[/QUOTE]

"Get your money for nothing, chicks for free".......sure why not. Posted Image[/QUOTE]

A Dire Straits reference. Massive props.

Not their best work, but anything done by Mark Knopfler is good by me.

#38 edavis0308

edavis0308

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 576 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.


So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.


Does everybody else think that payroll is magically going to shoot up once the Pohlads pay of their $150M bill they are footing, which like Chief said, is being paid off via revenues? Once it is paid off, our payroll SHOULD go up that amount to maintain the 50-52% into payroll. Does everything really think that will happen?

I for one see where Chief is coming from.

#39 edavis0308

edavis0308

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 576 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:27 PM

I should add that it seems like the disagreement here is on the perception of the wording as to how the Pohlads would be footing the bill. While both instances technically display them paying their portion with their own money.. I feel there is a degree of dishonesty to the latter using new revenues to pay the bill. Especially when so much public money is being used and those said revenues could be going towards bettering the on field product. It's pocketing the profit when you should be*reinvesting into your product.

#40 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,890 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

[quote name='edavis0308'][quote name='USAFChief'][quote name='twinsnorth49']They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment. [/QUOTE]

So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.[/QUOTE]



Does everybody else think that payroll is magically going to shoot up once the Pohlads pay of their $150M bill they are footing, which like Chief said, is being paid off via revenues? Once it is paid off, our payroll SHOULD go up that amount to maintain the 50-52% into payroll. Does everything really think that will happen?

I for one see where Chief is coming from.[/QUOTE]

Let's review this again, if the Pohlads borrowed the money, they would pay down the loan with stadium revenue. If they paid all the money up front, they would pay back the expenditure each year with stadium revenue. You say potato, I say potato. Payroll has gone up with revenue, what's the issue?

Investing $150M has a far higher rate of return than the debt service on borrowing it, it's pretty simple.

Rich people

#41 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:22 PM

[quote name='twinsnorth49'][quote name='edavis0308'][quote name='USAFChief'][quote name='twinsnorth49']They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment. [/QUOTE]

So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.[/QUOTE]



Does everybody else think that payroll is magically going to shoot up once the Pohlads pay of their $150M bill they are footing, which like Chief said, is being paid off via revenues? Once it is paid off, our payroll SHOULD go up that amount to maintain the 50-52% into payroll. Does everything really think that will happen?

I for one see where Chief is coming from.[/QUOTE]

Let's review this again, if the Pohlads borrowed the money, they would pay down the loan with stadium revenue. If they paid all the money up front, they would pay back the expenditure each year with stadium revenue. You say potato, I say potato. Payroll has gone up with revenue, what's the issue?

Investing $150M has a far higher rate of return than the debt service on borrowing it, it's pretty simple.

Rich people[/QUOTE]

There's a third option.

#42 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:28 PM

I should add that it seems like the disagreement here is on the perception of the wording as to how the Pohlads would be footing the bill. While both instances technically display them paying their portion with their own money.. I feel there is a degree of dishonesty to the latter using new revenues to pay the bill. Especially when so much public money is being used and those said revenues could be going towards bettering the on field product. It's pocketing the profit when you should be*reinvesting into your product.

Clearly the trend in attendance figure would reflect what will happen when the "product" goes down. To expect the Pohlads to pay money out and not recoup their investment in some point in time is ludicrous beyond belief. There are choices to be made by the Twins. Do they want to compete with the Royals or do they want to compete for championships. If it were competing with the Royals the Bill Smith would still be the GM. The Angels spent a lot of money on CJ Wilson and Pujols, found a rookie of the year in their minor league and only improved by three games. The Dodgers took on a ton of salary and played worse. Ryan needs to find the right parts. A high salary in and of itself does nothing for the win column. Finding the right players does. If you are thinking it is going to happen in less than a month you are being foolish.

In checking Forbes 2011 operating profit was less than the last year of the dome and one from 2005 (picked one at random)

Edited by old nurse, 19 November 2012 - 10:37 PM.


#43 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

Other than the Twins Dailey staff, which ones of you out there runs a business to not make money?

#44 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:05 PM

To expect the Pohlads to pay money out and not recoup their investment in some point in time is ludicrous beyond belief.


The Pohlads "recoup'd their investment", and then some, by having the value of their franchise go from an estimated $216M in 2006 to over $500M today.

http://www.statista....ins-since-2006/

"Recoup'd their investment" is a pretty generous term, anyway, since they made no actual "investment." In reality, they were given a $300M gift.

Rich people indeed.

#45 Einstein

Einstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:06 PM

I predict a lot of continued posturing by the Twins, followed by a few low ball offers that they know will not be nearly enough to entice any of the top talent (via trade or free agency), followed by a few "well, we tried" statements, and in the end they will end up with a mediocre bottom of the rotation starter or two that will excite nobody. Hopefully, they prove me wrong, but based upon past history I'm not counting on it.

#46 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,532 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:43 AM

It was difficult to read through the whole thread but was this thread started last year after the Marlins signed Buehrle, Reyes and Bell to ridiculous deals. That worked out awesome.

#47 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,890 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

It was difficult to read through the whole thread but was this thread started last year after the Marlins signed Buehrle, Reyes and Bell to ridiculous deals. That worked out awesome.


The Blue Jays seem to think it did.

#48 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,678 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:55 AM

Just because something works or not does not mean it was a good strategy or not. If so, life would be predictably boring.