Mackey: Blaming Payroll for Twins shortcomings is a lazy excuse

[DPJ]

Sports talk radio guy Mackey is knocking down his own straw man here. Most fans are smart enough to know that the Twins don't need to spend more money, they need to get better players.

WHAT?!?! Lazy reporting from a member of the Twins Cities sports media.

 

Color me shocked!

[Winston Smith]

We never seem to run out of excuses, trees, schedule, injuries, umpires you name it. In the end the payroll numbers mean little if the decision making of the front office doesn't change. Terry, Billy and all the scouts remain the same, the coaching staff remains and yet we expect a new and better result?

[John Bonnes]

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a_lazy_excuse081212

 

Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.

Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

 

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

 

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

 

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

 

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

 

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

 

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

 

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

 

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

 

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

 

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

 

~~~

 

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

 

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

[John Bonnes]

I'll ask once again' date=' who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?[/quote']

Sports talk radio-Twin Cities style. Knockin' down those strawmen since the 90's.

 

To be fair, I don't think it's limited to the Twin Cities. I can speak for Philadelphia and a little for New York and Boston, all of which are great sport cities. This is a staple of all of them.

[Ultima Ratio]

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a_lazy_excuse081212

 

Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.

Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

 

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

 

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

 

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

 

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

 

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

 

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

 

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

 

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

 

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

 

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

 

~~~

 

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

 

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

Bingo John! Someone has studied logical fallacies. Good on ya!

[edavis0308]

Should the different cities be looked at as solely the metro markets, or the whole blackout viewing market? Living in Des Moines, I have to deal with being in the Twins' 'market', yet the area defaults to the Cardinals on Mediacom. I feel like it is a relative point, as every area will have its own surrounding viewing area, but at least it should be brought up. The Rangers' only viewing competition off the top of my head is the Astros, whereas the Twins have to fight with the Brewers, Royals, Cardinals, Cubs, and White Sox.

[Highabove]

Phil Mackey belittles his readers and listeners on a regular basis

 

Mackey will not take calls on his show and engage in respectful conversation with those who hold an opposing point of view.

 

Instead, he chooses to take his shots and move on. (Bomb Thrower)

 

Back on March 27th, Mackey tweeted, "I do question the intelligence of a lot of readers"

 

I checked out on his arrogance long ago.

[Willihammer]

Actually the lazy thing is to blame management for gaffes that are obvious. The correlation between payroll and wins is sacrosand.

 

Teams don't release their financials, but we can estimate a ballteam's revenues based on previously leaked balance sheets. See deadspin series: http://deadspin.com/5615096

 

The attached spreadsheet uses bb-ref salary data which excludes bogus amortization player salary expense (a duplicate expense) that is expensed on the balance sheets. Teams accordingly spent an average of 36.46% of same-year revenues on player payroll. The range is large, but clearly in this sample the teams who spent more won more (see spreadsheet below).

 

Observing this, the Twins projected revenues for Target Field during 2010 and 2011 were 234m and 309m, respectively. Thus, their payroll would have been $117m in 2010 and $154m in 2011 if the purported 50% of estimated revenues spent on payroll, was accurate.

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

[Winston Smith]

"To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse."

 

Agree 100%

[Highabove]

[h=1]Darren Rovell CNBC

 

We all know that it's easier to make the playoffs in a sport without a salary cap if your team spends more money. More money allows you to acquire valuable free agents and make more mistakes in your talent evaluation and still recover.

[TABLE=align: left]

http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__SPORTS/BASEBALL/mlb_baseballs_200.jpg

Getty Images

[/TABLE]

But how much more of an advantage is a larger payroll in Major League Baseball?

I looked at the final season payrolls from 2001-2010 and came up with these odds. Of the 78 teams who made the playoffs, 48 of them (61.5 percent) were among the top 10 highest spenders. Eighteen of them (23.1 percent) ranked in 11th to 20th in league payroll. And 12 playoff teams (15.4 percent) came out of the bottom third of payroll.

So by going from a team in the bottom third, to a team in the middle third, you increase your chances of being in the playoffs by 50 percent. By going from the middle third to the top third, you increase your chances of making the postseason by 166 percent.

This year, half the playoff teams (based on Opening Day payrolls) came from the top third of payrolls (Yankees and Tigers), while 1/4 of the playoff teams came from the middle (Cardinals and Brewers) and bottom of payrolls (Rays and Diamondbacks).

As for actually winning it all?

Out of the last 10 winners, 60 percent have come from the top third of payroll, while 40 percent came from the middle third. There haven't been any winners from the bottom third over the last decade.

[/h]

[PseudoSABR]

[drivlikejehu]

Actually the lazy thing is to blame management for gaffes that are obvious. The correlation between payroll and wins is sacrosand.

 

Teams don't release their financials, but we can estimate a ballteam's revenues based on previously leaked balance sheets. See deadspin series: http://deadspin.com/5615096

 

The attached spreadsheet uses bb-ref salary data which excludes bogus amortization player salary expense (a duplicate expense) that is expensed on the balance sheets. Teams accordingly spent an average of 36.46% of same-year revenues on player payroll. The range is large, but clearly in this sample the teams who spent more won more (see spreadsheet below).

 

Observing this, the Twins projected revenues for Target Field during 2010 and 2011 were 234m and 309m, respectively. Thus, their payroll would have been $117m in 2010 and $154m in 2011 if the purported 50% of estimated revenues spent on payroll, was accurate.

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

 

I'm not seeing where any of those teams capitalized player salaries? Even if they did though, I'm not following how there is a 'duplicate expense.' Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

[darin617]

Can any team be successful for more than a season or 2 when you have so much money wrapped up into 1 player? You could if that player put up Barry Bonds on juice numbers then it is fine...

[Guest USAFChief]

 

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

 

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

 

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

 

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

 

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

 

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

 

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

 

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

 

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

 

~~~

 

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

 

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

 

Great post John.

[Willihammer]

I'm not seeing where any of those teams capitalized player salaries? Even if they did though, I'm not following how there is a 'duplicate expense.' Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

I pulled salaries from BB-Ref in all cases so as to be consistent because each balance sheet splices out expenses a little differently, but capitalization and amortization guidelines are spelled out in most cases.

 

From Pirates summarized balance sheet:

 

Player Contracts

 

Player contracts represent amounts paid to major and minor league players for signing bonuses, and are capitalized and amortized as player salaries and player development costs, respectively, over the contract period or length of time until the individual is eligible for free agency [straight line, usually]"

 

Rays Balance sheet: Note H (Useful life of player contracts ("Intangible Asset") 1-6 years

 

Angels Balance sheet: Note 2: Player contracts amortized using straight-line method over 3 years

 

Mariners Balance sheet: p. 6 (signing bonuses), p. 8 (contracts):

 

Player contracts are amortized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the respective players' contracts.

 

Rangers balance sheets: (I don't have excel at home, can't comment now, but a similar convention is used).

 

In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization.This is fine, but dont' claim that you're spending 50% of same year (or past year) revenues on player salaries when you're 'spending' a significant portion on amortization - esp. when A. This is very possibly not true, given the above data, and B. a significant portion of your amortization 'expense' is for players whose salaries expire pre or mid-peak of their careers. (and even more when you're enjoying a honeymoon with a new ballpark).

 

Again, my figures (pulled from deadspin leaks and BB-Ref) are available here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-d0lLNEJLWDluUk0

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Blaming_payroll_for_Twins_shortcomings_is_a_lazy_excuse081212

 

Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season.

Payroll -- or a perceived scaling back of -- is a lazy excuse.

 

100% agree with Mr. Mackey on this one!

 

It's a specious argument. It also a rhetorical trick.

 

The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.

 

The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.

 

(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)

 

In this case, the real-world examples are this:

 

1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.

 

To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.

 

2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.

 

I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.

 

~~~

 

I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.

 

It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.

 

This is a damn good post.

[drivlikejehu]

In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization. Standard practice when capitalizing an asset is to either A. record the cost up front in total, or B. record the cost each period as an amortized expense. Every MLB team among the deadspin leaks does both. In fact, in all cases the player salary line exceeds the bb-ref data, and on top of that the balance sheets expense amortization. This is duplicitous, and it is deceitful.

 

I know how it works, I'm just not seeing where some of your numbers are coming from. BR says the Mariners opening day 2008 payroll was $117.67 million, but your spreadsheet says $95.77 million?

 

I checked a few others that were OK, but they also don't include mid-season acquisitions. And another site has a different number for the 2008 Angels.

[Roaddog]

I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?

[old nurse]

I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?

Jack Morris might be the only free agent starting pitcher they ever signed that worked. Technically Cole Devries was a free agent

[Willihammer]

In short, player salaries are expensed on 2 different lines in all balance sheets: Player salaries, and amortization. Standard practice when capitalizing an asset is to either A. record the cost up front in total, or B. record the cost each period as an amortized expense. Every MLB team among the deadspin leaks does both. In fact, in all cases the player salary line exceeds the bb-ref data, and on top of that the balance sheets expense amortization. This is duplicitous, and it is deceitful.

 

I know how it works, I'm just not seeing where some of your numbers are coming from. BR says the Mariners opening day 2008 payroll was $117.67 million, but your spreadsheet says $95.77 million?

 

I checked a few others that were OK, but they also don't include mid-season acquisitions. And another site has a different number for the 2008 Angels.

 

E7: Willihammer. With that correction, the 2008 M's are the first and only team here to actually spend over 50% on payroll

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5pIzP28qdp-S0lheDlDYXdadW8

[Boom Boom]

I don't have a huge problem with them being thrifty with payroll , if the farm system is thriving and the FA's they do sign help the club. Doumit was a good signing, and they deserve some credit for that. However, the Marquis signing is another attempt by Ryan to bolster the rotation with has beens. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked in a long time. Can you name the last free agent pitcher that came in and made an impact?

 

Kenny Rogers in 2003?

[kab21]

So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

[Guest USAFChief]

So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

 

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

[kab21]

So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

 

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

 

Start naming names (contracts) or other ways that the Twins could have spent the money then. spending medium sized money in FA usually doesn't work. go big and get studs or look for bargains (like willingham).

 

I can think of one outstanding way for the Twins to spend money to improve the org. spend 11-12M on the draft and then spend nearly all of the int'l bonus pool. Wait a second... they did this...

[Guest USAFChief]

So some people complain that the team has a few payroll anchors on the team like Blackburn/Nishi yet they want the team to dive head first into FA to spend the available payroll? Something does not compute. Shelling out 4/58 for Buehrle, 5/75 for Wilson or 6/106 reyes got will certainly be viewed as anchors by the end of their contracts. And they are sizeable anchors instead of the little ones that you complain about now.

 

See the "strawman" post above. Sheesh.

 

Start naming names (contracts) or other ways that the Twins could have spent the money then. spending medium sized money in FA usually doesn't work. go big and get studs or look for bargains (like willingham).

 

I can think of one outstanding way for the Twins to spend money to improve the org. spend 11-12M on the draft and then spend nearly all of the int'l bonus pool. Wait a second... they did this...

 

So you post that there's no middle ground between "payroll anchors like Nishioka and Blackburn" and "diving head first into FA" ... And then turn around and provide an example of just such middle ground (Willingham) one post later?

 

Leaving money in ownerships hands "improves the organization"? How?

 

And one more time...Blackburn and Nishioka are not the issue. Just because you spent some of your payroll foolishly doesn't provide an excuse not to spend the rest. As a matter of fact, one could make the opposite argument.

[Jim Crikket]

I'm 100% with Bonnes on this one.

 

I get tired of hearing fans/bloggers whine about the Pohlads not spending enough money. Their argument eventually comes down to feeling that ownership should not treat the Twins as a business, but because the family has enormous wealth, they should not hesitate to spend like the big-market teams do. That's an extreme view that I've pretty much learned to tune out because it serves no purpose in a reasonable discussion of the issues.

 

But all Mackey did was take the exact opposite, yet equally extreme view. "Payroll -- or a perceived lack thereof -- has absolutely nothing to do with (emphasis added) why the Twins have lost more than 160 games since the beginning of last season."

 

That is every bit as absurd a statement as saying ownership should spend whatever it takes to buy the best FAs on the market.

 

Absolutely, there are damn good teams with $100 mil payrolls or less. Most, if not all, of them include a few minimum salary guys who are performing well above their pay grade. Few, if any, of them are paying 20-25% of their payrolls to a single player, which means they're able to pay more, on average, for each of their supporting cast of players. The Twins knew this (or should have known it anyway) when they gave Mauer his deal.

 

So tell me payroll isn't the only factor. Tell me it isn't the primary factor. Tell me you think most people believe payroll is a bigger factor than it really is. Tell me it's possible to win with a low payroll and show me that teams have done so. Make your case for specific other factors being more important. Point out instances of poor decision making and flat out bad luck that arguably would have resulted in keeping the Twins from being contenders. Those are all legitimate points to make and I may even agree with you on most, if not all, of them.

 

But anyone... whether professional reporter/media personality or not... who states a belief that payroll has "absolutely nothing" to do with losses on the field is risking his credibility as a journalist or even as a person with an opinion worth any level of consideration.

 

I think Phil writes some good stuff, but in this case, at best he chose his words very poorly in an effort to make what otherwise could have been a valid set of points. It's ironic that, in the process of accusing those of us who believe the Twins could spend a bit more money of being lazy, his own laziness negated any value his article might otherwise have had on this issue.

[kab21]

what are you talking about? I'm asking you to IN HINDSIGHT go find mid tier FA's that you want on the team. CJ and Buehrle are having great years but I'm not interested at all in having either of these guys earning 15M at age 37. That is an anchor.

 

signing Willingham was very lucky. I liked the deal then and wish it easy to find more like him. Aramis Ramirez looks like a good get at 3/36. the Twins could have gotten another OF'er in Carlos Beltran who has been worth every penny on a 2 yr contract.

[nokomismod]

I think the Twins ownership is in a unique situation right now. They have a chunk of their fanbase that is angry (I would argue disproportionately) about Mauer and the team not spending enough. There is another chunk of the fanbase that has tuned out after another bad season. I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient. Spend more than you normally would this offseason to ensure more positive revenues in the next 3 years.

Let's hope we don't get into the bind that Cleveland is in where the fans don't trust mgmt and the mgmt won't spend because the fans are not showing up anymore.

[Willihammer]

I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient.

 

This is an astute idea.

 

The middle infield, starting pitching, and still to a degree, relief pitching is pour, and there is no immediate relief unless you accept waiver wire / Rule 5 guys who have failed the Twins during the 00s.

 

The J.J. Hardy trade may go down as the worst in recent memory.

 

But, there is evidence that the team is making a heavy profit, and that money is available. Who should be signed? I don't know. No one screams at me, but if a creative trade involving Span, Capps, and cash could be made for a young starting pitching several years under team control, that would go a long way to solving the Twins first problem.

 

Their 2nd problem I would argue (after aquiring an ace) is middle infield.

 

It is no coincidence the Orioles have managed an underdog role after picking up clockwork-guy Hardy to play SS (bank him for 7-11 defensive runs/year; ISO between .150 and .200).

[kab21]

I think the Twins ownership is in a unique situation right now. They have a chunk of their fanbase that is angry (I would argue disproportionately) about Mauer and the team not spending enough. There is another chunk of the fanbase that has tuned out after another bad season. I think they have to consider spending their way out of this problem until their farm system is self sufficient. Spend more than you normally would this offseason to ensure more positive revenues in the next 3 years.

Let's hope we don't get into the bind that Cleveland is in where the fans don't trust mgmt and the mgmt won't spend because the fans are not showing up anymore.

 

Fans aren't going to support an expensive loser either (see the Mets). the key is turning the club into a winner and it appears that some are only interested in finding ways to get back to 80 wins even if it leaves future payrolls stuck with bad contracts.