Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: The Marlins are Ridiculous... Or Are They? Baseball Econ 101

  1. #41
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    3,615
    Like
    37
    Liked 183 Times in 103 Posts
    Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    378
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.
    Why? Because he would spend money in any way to make his team better? Because he makes huge efforts to keep his fan base and employees happy? Because he is not afraid to say what is on his mind, regardless of whether it is PC or not?

    I would love to see Cuban as an owner in baseball.

  3. #43
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Dan Gladden View Post
    Why? Because he would spend money in any way to make his team better? Because he makes huge efforts to keep his fan base and employees happy? Because he is not afraid to say what is on his mind, regardless of whether it is PC or not?

    I would love to see Cuban as an owner in baseball.
    I agree with you, he'd be great...but Reinsdorf wields some serious weight in the game and he doesn't want him as an MLB owner.

  4. #44
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    3,615
    Like
    37
    Liked 183 Times in 103 Posts
    Because he is a buffoon who would ruin the game.

    None of the owners want Cuban in.

  5. #45
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    Because he is a buffoon who would ruin the game.

    None of the owners want Cuban in.
    Yeah, a buffoon...that he started as a bartender and has made himself into a billionaire. Yeah, what a buffoon...
    And the Mavericks are obviously worse off with him as their owner, considering they haven't missed the playoffs since he bought them in 2000. He IS passionate about his team, though, and is willing to do what it takes for them to win. It'd be HORRIBLE to have that kind of owner...

  6. #46
    Super Moderator MVP Riverbrian's Avatar
    Posts
    7,040
    Like
    1,175
    Liked 682 Times in 439 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mark Cuban owner... No way Ozzie Guillen would be his coach... After the Castro comments... Cubans don't like Ozzie... (Rim shot)...

    Sorry about that... It came into my head and I typed it.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    888
    Like
    38
    Liked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Mark Cuban would be great for baseball for the following reasons: he would get Bud out, he would not accept the "old boys club" secret society that is so secretive about the finances of teams, and he would be a driving owner in finally getting certain baseball issues solved (i.e. DH either in both leagues or in neither league - I favor neither, but that's my love for pitching and defense showing through).

    Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball for the following reasons: he would remove a LOT of the "gentleman" aspect of baseball, he would be the type of owner who would encourage an on-field fight, and he'd likely set the market even more skewed against small market teams.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    Yet the Cubs are proof that spending money does not win championships. See also the Mets.
    27 words for you... New York Yankees

  9. #49
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twins4121 View Post
    27 words for you... New York Yankees
    One example for you, two for me. Only 6 of the 27 championships have come in the last 50 years. TBuying players does not win you championships.

  10. #50
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    3,622
    Like
    837
    Liked 607 Times in 232 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball.
    For all the reasons already stated by others, you're wrong.
    "Maybe you could go grab a bat and ballÖ and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
    - Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

  11. #51
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,074
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    I don't understand the anti-Cuban hate. Why is he such an awful dude? To me he's just a straight shooter, I've never understood why he's such a cancer.

  12. #52
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    I care about the team, I just have a basic understanding of how businesses work.

    The "Durr durr the Pohlad's are cheap" drivel gets really old, when in fact they have shown an ability to spend over 100 million a year when they feel it's warranted, I believe a couple years ago they were one of the top 8 or 10 payrolls in all of baseball.

    Good lord, people act like we are in the middle of the 1993-2000 days again, give me a break.
    According to Nygaard's payroll page the Twins obligations for 2013 is currently $72 million. In 2012 that would have put the Twins 24th out of 30 teams. So yes, it currently is like the late '90s. Except now the public just paid $350 million for Target Field. I believe there is an obligation to the tax payers of Hennepin County. The idea that it doesn't matter if the Twins cut payroll and pocket the difference is insulting. I think the most frustrating thing is there is no reason to be slashing payroll to the extent, and by extension not signing good FA's, that the Twins have. Bringing in crappy players because they're cheap doesn't help develop your minor league talent. Signing Correia instead of Marcum doesn't mean that Meyer will be ready to pitch this year instead of next year. The only reason I can see to NOT be spending the money is because either A) you want to increase your short term profits or B) you intentionally want to put a poorer product on the field.

  13. #53
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    Yet the Cubs are proof that spending money does not win championships. See also the Mets.
    Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

    Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.

  14. #54
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,251
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Blog Entries
    1
    The Kansas City Star's Bob Dutton doesn't expect the Royals to sign free agent starter Shaun Marcum.

    The Royals have previously been linked to Marcum, but Dutton believes he'll ultimately be out of their price range. Marcum, who turned 31 years old earlier this month, has also drawn interest from the Twins and Padres. He's known to be seeking a two-year deal in free agency.
    Related: Royals

    Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter

  15. #55
    Super Moderator MVP Riverbrian's Avatar
    Posts
    7,040
    Like
    1,175
    Liked 682 Times in 439 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

    Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.
    This is a good Post Ox... I can't disagree with anything you say... I'll just tack on some obvious stuff.
    I think spending money wisely is key... Any baseball team can take a voyage on the USS Good Money Over Bad and its not a good ship to be on.

    Spending it... Just to reach some top 10 tier so you are sucked in by the correlation winds would be miss guided.

    I think the timing of when you spend is an important factor... Personally.... I seriously question the timing of spending for 2013.

    I still want Marcum... But I'm not going to watch the payroll tote board. That's just me... Others obviously feel different.

  16. #56
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,786
    Like
    4
    Liked 67 Times in 50 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    According to Nygaard's payroll page the Twins obligations for 2013 is currently $72 million. In 2012 that would have put the Twins 24th out of 30 teams. So yes, it currently is like the late '90s. Except now the public just paid $350 million for Target Field. I believe there is an obligation to the tax payers of Hennepin County. The idea that it doesn't matter if the Twins cut payroll and pocket the difference is insulting. I think the most frustrating thing is there is no reason to be slashing payroll to the extent, and by extension not signing good FA's, that the Twins have. Bringing in crappy players because they're cheap doesn't help develop your minor league talent. Signing Correia instead of Marcum doesn't mean that Meyer will be ready to pitch this year instead of next year. The only reason I can see to NOT be spending the money is because either A) you want to increase your short term profits or B) you intentionally want to put a poorer product on the field.
    Pretty succinctly put for a large issue!

    One word I don't believe to be in your post is "investment." I see the Twins as simply not investing in the organization when it holds on to millions of bucks for whatever reason (is it really just greed on the part of billionaire owners who must laugh at the residents of Hennepin County every day???). It isn't like signing Shaun Marcum or whoever merely means that they may get to 80 wins and put more people in the seats. It also means that they could trade Marcum to a real contender at the deadline in 2013 or 2014 in return for a prospect. It isn't a bad idea to look at FA signings not merely as improvements for the team, but as flippable players (or it provides the possibility of trading other players) for future talent.

  17. #57
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,786
    Like
    4
    Liked 67 Times in 50 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverbrian View Post
    This is a good Post Ox... I can't disagree with anything you say... I'll just tack on some obvious stuff.
    I think spending money wisely is key... Any baseball team can take a voyage on the USS Good Money Over Bad and its not a good ship to be on.

    Spending it... Just to reach some top 10 tier so you are sucked in by the correlation winds would be miss guided.

    I think the timing of when you spend is an important factor... Personally.... I seriously question the timing of spending for 2013.

    I still want Marcum... But I'm not going to watch the payroll tote board. That's just me... Others obviously feel different.
    I have grown tired of this "spend it just to spend it" mantra from people around here. Who the hell is saying that? First, spending money to make money isn't a bad business idea. Second, putting a more successful team on the field makes your team more attractive to other free agents. Third, spending money on free agents and then trading for prospects is a smart move and it just takes an initial investment to have that capacity to build for the future. This involves taking on risk, yes, but so what? No business is successful without taking those kinds of risks.

  18. #58
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,074
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Gun View Post
    The Kansas City Star's Bob Dutton doesn't expect the Royals to sign free agent starter Shaun Marcum.

    The Royals have previously been linked to Marcum, but Dutton believes he'll ultimately be out of their price range. Marcum, who turned 31 years old earlier this month, has also drawn interest from the Twins and Padres. He's known to be seeking a two-year deal in free agency.
    Related: Royals

    Source: Bob Dutton on Twitter
    Hey....there is the guy we know!

  19. #59
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    Two things; first, neither the Cubs nor the Mets are proof that spending does not win championships. They only show that spending doesn't guarantee championships. That is a subtle yet big difference.

    Second, while I know that you are specifically talking about championships, there is a correlation between spending and winning. Teams that spend more have a higher probability of winning then teams that spend less. While this correlation is currently not as strong as in the past it none the less still exists.
    If I had a dollar for every time someone on this board ripped on the Twins and Gardenhire for not winning a championship I might be retired. That is why I referred to championships and not winning. Now it is good enough to be a winning team? It is not the spending per se that gets you the wins. See the 2012 Philies, Marlins, Red Sox. as examples of spending that did not get wins. Injuries negates the spending. Disfunction negates the spending. Not having any decent players to go along with your spended upon players renders it meaningless. There are a ton of slightly better than crappy players the Twins could have spent their money on. They would not make the team significantly better.

  20. #60
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    If I had a dollar for every time someone on this board ripped on the Twins and Gardenhire for not winning a championship I might be retired. That is why I referred to championships and not winning. Now it is good enough to be a winning team? It is not the spending per se that gets you the wins. See the 2012 Philies, Marlins, Red Sox. as examples of spending that did not get wins. Injuries negates the spending. Disfunction negates the spending. Not having any decent players to go along with your spended upon players renders it meaningless. There are a ton of slightly better than crappy players the Twins could have spent their money on. They would not make the team significantly better.
    You can keep stating that spending is bad because the Phillies, Red Sox, etc... did not play well last year but when you look at the league as a whole the spenders win more than the non spenders. So yeah, spending might not significantly improve the Twins 2013 playoff chances, of course it might we don't know, but immediate success isn't the only point of spending in 2013. I would point you to Shane's post #56 as to other reasons spending is beneficial. Not spending does nothing to help your club. It only helps you bottom line short term.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.