Comments on: M&M: Time to Step Up or Shut Up

By: birdofprey

birdofprey — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:21:42 +0000

Enjoyable, Jim. But I’m just not convinced there is any attempt to send a message to the players. The Twins business operates with specific financial disciplines in place. One of those is to spend, ON AVERAGE, no more than 50% of revenues on the 40 man payroll. So, while I agree with you that they are considering a likely falloff in revenue, I don’t believe they have a payroll number set in stone per se. ANd we’ve seen Ryan in action before. He’ll err on the side of losing a specific player rather than overpaying him, because he knows even the Capps and Cuddyers are far more fungible that the players and fans believe them to be.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:50:34 +0000

I enjoyed this greatly. Sums up the frustration of most Twins fans. I hope that Maurer will be able to regain the respect most of us lost for him last year. And hope Morneau and Span recover from the Concussion Syndrome. We surely have the most fragile players in the history of professional baseball.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:58:36 +0000

Indeed. Right now Joe Mauer is thankful he chose baseball over football. His multi-year bajillion $ contract is going to work out better for him than Donovan McNabb’s did.

By: jjswol

jjswol — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:54:34 +0000

I agree. It is unfortunate that the contracts of today do not allow for pay cuts. Hopefully one day the owners will wise up again and write contracts that will allow them to decrease pay just as the contracts can provide bonus pay today based on certain criteria. Then again,the players union will never allow that to happen. But in a perect world……

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:49:52 +0000

jjswol, that’s a fair point. The thing is, in a fair world, the guys who didn’t perform would be the ones getting paid less, allowing payroll to justifiably be decreased. But this is baseball.

So if Mauer, Morneau and Nishioka will make the same money and Span, Baker, Liriano, Blackburn and Casilla will actually make more than they made in 2011 (Span’s pay triples, btw), perhaps the only way to make your point with that group of core players is to say, “You didn’t perform last year but we can’t cut your pay, so this year you won’t have guys like Thome, Cuddyer, Kubel and Nathan to fall back on if you don’t perform again. It’s all on you, now. Prove yourselves worthy and we’ll look at adding some more guys to help out.”

And the more I think about it, the more I think that’s pretty much exactly what the team is telling their “stars”.

By: jjswol

jjswol — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:34:02 +0000

Thanks for a good read, I enjoyed it. I think the Twins have told us that the payroll will be about $100 million give or take and since GM Ryan is very conservative from a salary perspective, I expect the opening day salary to be closer to $95 million than to $100 million.
As was pointed out in the story, Twins revenue will drop, there is no way around it and since the Twins have stated in the past that they use xx% of revenue for their payroll, you have to drop payroll.
There is a bit of “carrot and stick” thing going on here, you can’t reward a team that went 63-99 with pay raises although some players feel they should get paid just for making the roster and showing up in the club house on game days. In my eyes, a decrease in payroll is justified here.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:30:26 +0000

The whole question of what a team’s “obligations” are is probably a topic that could warrant a whole lot of posts, by itself. I tend to agree that a private business like the Twins have no such obligation. In fact, being too publicly forthright can lead to problems as you negotiate with other teams, etc.

But when teams want something from their fan base (such as a publicly financed stadium), they’re very quick to talk about how the team is a community asset worthy of local support and, in many cases, public investment in order to retain. You don’t see many movie studios doing that.

During the many, many years of stadium debates involving the Twins, the club claimed they needed the revenue a new stadium would bring in order to afford to compete for other teams free agents. When the stadium deal was official, the team was quick to clarify that the new revenues wouldn’t mean they were likely to sign other teams’ high priced free agents, but would allow them to keep many more of their own. And for a couple of years, that’s what they’ve certainly done.

But now, heading in to their 3rd year in the stadium, it appears that virtually all of their own free agents will sign elsewhere because they’ve determined revenues will drop, necessitating a reduced payroll.

All of this being the case, I really don’t think it’s unreasonable for fans to ask for an explanation.

In any event, TT, you’re right… wondering what the front office is up to is much of what makes the offseason interesting. I would go further and say that talking, debating, and even arguing about what the club is (or should be) up to is even more fun than just wondering. Fortunately, in this blog, I’ve got a vehicle that allows me to voice my opinion. Is this a great country or what?

By: TT

TT — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:07:32 +0000

” they all said they wanted to see our commitment to spending enough money on payroll to win. We did that and we got 99 losses for our efforts”

I think Terry Ryan said about that at his introductory news conference. He didn’t think the budget was all that important, and he “certainly” was going to have more to work with this time around than he did before.

The Twins are not under any obligation to tell the fans exactly what they are thinking or to even tell the truth. You don’t complain that the movie studios don’t hold news conferences to warn you that their new movie may be a turkey or that the star was badly cast.

Wondering what the front office is up to is part of what makes the hot stove interesting. That, and watching it unfold one event at a time.

By: JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:02:41 +0000

You wouldn’t be applauding alone, JC. It would be a 20-minute standing ovation.