Spend money just to spend money?

[Jim Crikket]

How do you figure? In 2015, most, if not all, of our starters are gonna be pre-arbitration players or 1 year arbitration players? Sano, Parmelee, Rosario, Florimon (or another young guy), Hicks, Arcia, Benson/Buxton, Gibson, May, Meyer, Diamond, Worley (or Berrios). Other than Mauer, where are they spending?

 

This may actually be the case as soon as 2014 and is just one reason why the people who think the Twins are saving money this year so they can spend it next year or the year after are smoking something they really should share with the rest of us.

 

The Twins are unlikely to have a payroll at $100 million again during the remainder of Joe Mauer's current contract. With the additional National tv money kicking in next year, club revenues will quite possibly reach an all-time high (with the possible exception of year 1 of Target Field).

 

Has anyone else noticed that nobody... NOBODY... in the Twins organization has uttered a word about the old, "we spend 50-52% of revenues on MLB payroll" line they've spouted about consistently for a generation? My guess is you'll never hear them say that again. The new model will be closer to 40% of revenue and/or they'll start claiming that the bonus money they pay to draftees and international signings have to be included, in addition to MLB payroll.

[Nick Nelson]

"Spend money just to spend money?" I'm not sure anyone has ever said that.

I've become convinced that this is the go-to rebuttal for people on the other side of this debate, even though it makes no sense and -- as you mentioned -- no one is saying that. Definition of a strawman that won't die. This became clear to me in the following exchange I had with Seth on the "Under-Delivering" thread (not to pick on you Seth, but I found this amusing):

 

Then you are missing the point. It's not about spending to spend. It's about spending to make the team better

 

No, I get and understand your point, but I think way too many people look at the salary number as if salary alone is what the team needs to compete. Spending just to spend makes no sense.

[josecordoba]

It's not so much spending just to spend. It's managing your budget in a way that when Money is most needed (July/August of Contending Years, Free Agency with important need to fill) the money's there. I realize it's frustrating if you understand the money probably being sat on but I would argue a much better strategy is to save the money when a team has a much greater marginal value per win.

[Guest USAFChief]

Humor me here...can someone explain why "spending just to spend" makes no sense?

 

While you're at it, explain to me why "not spending just to not spend" does​ make sense.

[ThePuck]

It's not so much spending just to spend. It's managing your budget in a way that when Money is most needed (July/August of Contending Years, Free Agency with important need to fill) the money's there. I realize it's frustrating if you understand the money probably being sat on but I would argue a much better strategy is to save the money when a team has a much greater marginal value per win.

 

except it's not like they put the money aside for the next year...like, okay, we cut payroll from 112M to 94M and now to 80M. They aren't gonna spend 112 plus the additional 32M saved over the last two years. There is no reason to believe they'll put that money aside to spend in 'contending years' which his likely 2017 at the very earliest.

[johnnydakota]

If you always do ,what you have always done.

you always get , what you have always gotten.

 

Think maybe it is time for a change?

[johnnydakota]

I put this in Google Translate, and my computer blew its brains out.

 

So your saying you would rather watch a 100 million dollar payroll lose 100 games, then watch young guys getting a chance?

[johnnydakota]

I'm on my 3rd CPU because of JD.

 

So your saying if ownership was honest, that would be a dumb idea? You prefer to be lied to?

[ThePuck]

So your saying you would rather watch a 100 million dollar payroll lose 100 games, then watch young guys getting a chance?

 

He's giving you carp for your spelling and sentence structure even though he likely understands what you mean. Just more cheap shots.

[FrodaddyG]

So your saying you would rather watch a 100 million dollar payroll lose 100 games, then watch young guys getting a chance?

No, I'm saying your posts are largely incoherent.

[Jim Crikket]

Humor me here...can someone explain why "spending just to spend" makes no sense?

 

While you're at it, explain to me why "not spending just to not spend" does​ make sense.

 

The "don't spend just to spend" people seem to think the rest of us would be OK with Terry Ryan giving Correia $25 million a year instead of $5 million because at least the Twins would have close to a $100 million payroll that way. It's absurd, but then their point is absurd.

 

Not spending just to not spend is basically what the Twins have done for all but 1-2 years of their existence.

[josecordoba]

except it's not like they put the money aside for the next year...like, okay, we cut payroll from 112M to 94M and now to 80M. They aren't gonna spend 112 plus the additional 32M saved over the last two years. There is no reason to believe they'll put that money aside to spend in 'contending years' which his likely 2017 at the very earliest.

 

I agree that this sentiment is most likely true yet you don't want contract signed in 2013 to limit your ability to add Payroll in 2015. I realize you could sign short-term contracts but then I wonder why not just see what you have with younger guys (Plouffe, Dozier, Parmalee, Florimon, Gibson, Hendricks) if an additional 20 Million Dollars might only be the difference between 70-74 wins.

[Ultima Ratio]

why not just see what you have with younger guys (Plouffe, Dozier, Parmalee, Florimon, Gibson, Hendricks)

Didn't we see plenty of Dozier, and enough of Florimon and Plouffe last year to know roughly what they are capable of? Also, we say plenty of Carroll at 2B at the end of last year when we should have seen if Dozier was any better at 2B, or hell, even give Mastro a shot there like many on this board were clamoring for.

[Winston Smith]

It will be telling what happens with the 2 young guys from Cuba. They have plenty of money by any account, perhaps the greatest Cuban player of all time on the staff and a great need for good young players. So what happens?

 

1) We couldn't give our money away.

2) Tony O was busy and nobody else understands Cuban.

3) We felt no need to upgrade at shortstop with all the quality prospects there.

4) Jim is buying another car dealership and needs the money.

5) We are all surprised and TR makes the kind of signing that BS actually was good at.

[Jim Crikket]

In the end, IF a GM can assemble a roster that will entertain fans and keep their interest all season long for $80 million, then there's no reason to just hand that same group of players an extra $20 million just so you can say you have a $100 million payroll.

 

But that's NOT the case with the Twins. Their $78.5 million team this summer seems unlikely to maintain fan interest, much less support. The result would then be even lower revenues... and, based on the Twins' historical approach, an even lower payroll the following year. The downward spiral would not be broken until either (a) the Twins decide to go against their prior trends and invest more in talent and show some faith in their fans that the resulting improved product would increase fan support; or ( they get lucky and have a season where a bunch of minimum wage players win a lot of games. In which case, the increased revenues might... might... be used to keep some of those players in a Twins uniform beyond their arbitration years.

[ThePuck]

I agree that this sentiment is most likely true yet you don't want contract signed in 2013 to limit your ability to add Payroll in 2015. I realize you could sign short-term contracts but then I wonder why not just see what you have with younger guys (Plouffe, Dozier, Parmalee, Florimon, Gibson, Hendricks) if an additional 20 Million Dollars might only be the difference between 70-74 wins.

 

Think about what our team will look like in 2015. Other than Mauer, almost all of our starters will likely pre-arbitration guys with maybe 1 or 2 1st year arbitration guys mixed in. Do you know what that means for payroll?

[nicksaviking]

I guess I don't get the "Don't spend money just to spend money" arguement. The premise then is that the Twins don't want to spent the extra $2-7 million per year on a pitcher better than Correia because the team results would be next to negligible.

 

Why did they then spend that $10 million on Correia at all? Isn't that "spending money just to spend money" seeing as they could have gotten rotation filler for league minimum or $1 million at a later date? (and likely just as effective, but that's a different arguement)

 

The we don't want to "spend money just to spend money" line of logic holds no water. There's probably more to it, but it would seem to me there are only two explanations. One is that the Pohlad's have capped payroll at $80 million and Ryan had few options, OR Ryan misguidedly thinks Correia is as good of a pitcher as the other free agent arms and he got a bargain on him. I truely hope it's the first option.

[josecordoba]

The "don't spend just to spend" people seem to think the rest of us would be OK with Terry Ryan giving Correia $25 million a year instead of $5 million because at least the Twins would have close to a $100 million payroll that way. It's absurd, but then their point is absurd.

 

Not spending just to not spend is basically what the Twins have done for all but 1-2 years of their existance.

 

1. I would never assume that more spending crowd would advocate giving Kevin Correria an absurd contract. I don't disagree with the main premise that the more money spent would equal a better product on the field which would equal more fan interest. What I wonder though is about the value of short-term gain at the expense of long-term construction.

 

2. I wouldn't describe the Twins as not spending for their existence. The reality is their financial resources were limited in the Old Stadium and Television Market compared to other franchises. The Twins have spent within budget for most of their existence. The Twins weren't cheap in their moves before 1991 yet the finances of Baseball have changed during this time frame. The Twins aren't as generous with their finances as other teams in similar markets yet this doesn't mean that no opportunities can't be used to advance the roster. What my issue tends to be is what is the best approach to put a championship level product on the field heading into the 2013 Season. I tend to believe that developing Internal Talent to eventually combine with external talent (Such as the Hudson/Hardy moves in 2010) is the best approach at this time.

[josecordoba]

I guess I don't get the "Don't spend money just to spend money" arguement. The premise then is that the Twins don't want to spent the extra $2-7 million per year on a pitcher better than Correia because the team results would be next to negligible.

 

Why did they then spend that $10 million on Correia at all? Isn't that "spending money just to spend money" seeing as they could have gotten rotation filler for league minimum or $1 million at a later date? (and likely just as effective, but that's a different arguement)

 

The we don't want to "spend money just to spend money" line of logic holds no water.

 

I'm guessing the thought process is they wanted an inning-eating backup for young rotation options. Generally any pitcher that has decent health that isn't going to be outright terrible is going to cost more then league minimum.

[twinsnorth49]

He's giving you carp for your spelling and sentence structure even though he likely understands what you mean. Just more cheap shots.

 

I'm also saying his post are largely incoherent, no cheap shots.

 

You take the sensitivity police thing a little too far my friend.

[ThePuck]

I'm guessing the thought process is they wanted an inning-eating backup for young rotation options. Generally any pitcher that has decent health that isn't going to be outright terrible is going to cost more then league minimum.

 

And we shoot for pitchers like this every year it seems...and they almost always blow chunks...which may make chunks happy, but the rest of us ticked off

[Ultima Ratio]

I'm guessing the thought process is they wanted an inning-eating backup for young rotation options. Generally any pitcher that has decent health that isn't going to be outright terrible is going to cost more then league minimum.

 

League min. is 480,00. Correia will make 5 million. Those numbers are not close where I come from.

[ThePuck]

I'm also saying his post are largely incoherent, no cheap shots.

 

You take the sensitivity police thing a little too far my friend.

 

The CPU comment wasn't a cheap shot? So you didn't understand what he was saying? I had no issues understanding what he meant.

 

Largely incoherent? Hmmm, that's what Frodaddy said...

[tmerrickkeller]

JC, you're right. This IS the point - don't just throw money away, and if you can run the business for $80 million, do it. But we have a "cheap theater" here in Sioux Falls, and everyone I know who goes there finds it pretty much disgusting. The seats are broken and they don't fix them. The place isn't clean and they haven't tried to update a thing. It seems clear that ownership is just trying to milk the place for a few dollars with no long-term view to keeping people happy or trying to do the right thing on any level. Because (while there is competition from Redbox, HBO, other forms of entertainment etc.) there is no place else in town to watch relatively new-release movies for $3. I hate seeing this team use that business model, and that's what this feels like - sort of a "what you gonna do?" spit in the face.

 

I also agree with the posters who say that there is no logic in not spending the money to save it for the future stars - the future stars are all young and under control for years to come. I think the team has to "do both" and try to get the best players they can get and spend $93 million per season, so long as those contracts don't block the longer-term plan to bring up the 2015 lineup that we've talked about - where every single one of them is either a pre-arbitration youngster, or a guy named Mauer.

[Jim Crikket]

josecordoba, my first example was not aimed directly at you, but those who continue to argue that investing a few million more to improve the 2013 team amounts to nothing more than "spending just to spend."

 

That said, if you really don't believe the Twins were cheap in their moves before 1991, I can only conclude that you weren't around during the Calvin Griffith days or you're a member of Cal's family.

[josecordoba]

[/font]

Didn't we see plenty of Dozier, and enough of Florimon and Plouffe last year to know roughly what they are capable of? Also, we say plenty of Carroll at 2B at the end of last year when we should have seen if Dozier was any better at 2B, or hell, even give Mastro a shot there like many on this board were clamoring for.

 

We saw a healthy Plouffe (Who was a decent long-term option) along with a dinged up Plouffe (Who was not). We saw Dozier make his first run through the majors (340 At Bats). We saw Florimon for 150 at bats. I've got ideas about the long-term value of all these players yet I haven't seen enough of any of them to make conclusive judgments. If the Twins were on a different spot on the Franchise Curve I would advocate a different approach but I'm fine with seeing if these guys can make useful adjustments.

[josecordoba]

josecordoba, my first example was not aimed directly at you, but those who continue to argue that investing a few million more to improve the 2013 team amounts to nothing more than "spending just to spend."

 

That said, if you really don't believe the Twins were cheap in their moves before 1991, I can only conclude that you weren't around during the Calvin Griffith days or you're a member of Cal's family.

 

Fair enough.

[JB_Iowa]

I'd like to rephrase the question a bit: "Why AREN'T they spending more money in 2013?" and "WHAT will they do with the savings?"

 

I think that the HONEST answers to those questions would get a little more at the heart of my discontent.

 

Right now I think that they aren't spending money mostly because Terry Ryan is ultra-conservative financially and has a significant distrust of purchasing free agent pitching. I don't think it has anything to do with whether spending the money might actually improve this team somewhat. I honestly believe that it goes to the heart of a psychological, philosophical and emotional issue for Terry Ryan. He is cheap -- and he wants to build a pitching staff on the cheap. He (and the rest of this organization) does not measure success in terms of wins and losses but in terms of how much black ink is on the bottom line.

 

In answer to my second question, I would guess that they are simply going to use their non-spending to increase profits (at least for now although as JC mentions, if they don't spend more, their revenues may nosedive and then they'll be in a different kind of mess). I'd like to believe that they will harbor it for more significant free agent acquisitions in the future but until they make it clear that they have changed their accounting approach, I have no choice but to believe that any savings will go straight to profit.

 

I have made it clear all along that I don't have a problem with spending less than 50% if, in contending times, the team is willing to send significantly more than 50%.

 

BUT as of right now, I have not heard ANY Twins official (where are you Mr. St. Peter?) state that the team is changing its approach to the 50% rule. As I've stated before, the policy apparently has a lot to do with a ceiling but nothing to do with a floor.

 

All of the team's fans have a right to be skeptical and disenchanted with the way that the free-agent dance has been handled by the Twins this off-season. Season ticket holders, on the other hand, also have the right to be angry for being misled.

[jokin]

It will be telling what happens with the 2 young guys from Cuba. They have plenty of money by any account, perhaps the greatest Cuban player of all time on the staff and a great need for good young players. So what happens?

 

 

2) Tony O was busy and nobody else understands Cuban.

 

.

 

Paging Barbara Billingsley:

 

"...Chump don't want no help, chump don't get DICK help..."

[josecordoba]

And we shoot for pitchers like this every year it seems...and they almost always blow chunks...which may make chunks happy, but the rest of us ticked off

 

I don't disagree yet the role of Kevin Correria types concern me must more when you're competing for a division then when you're rebuillding. Basically if Kevin Correria gets Thirty Starts in 2013 (We'll probably get what many predict) hopefully he gives you 180 below average innings yet if Kevin Correria types start 30 games when competing for a Division Title then this is a much bigger problem.