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!