PDA

View Full Version : Article: Where Should Payroll Sit in 2013?



Nick Nelson
10-15-2012, 12:48 AM
You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php?1099-Where-Should-Payroll-Sit-in-2013

clutterheart
10-15-2012, 05:33 AM
105+ MM USD is where I want it to be but really it doesn't matter. The Team needs to spend money smart and with a target approach. The whole point of the stadium was for the team to get extra revenue and use it to cover up mistakes that would have killed them when they were in the dome. The team needs to spend what it thinks will bring a team who won't embarrass the fans and a pitching staff that actually give the team a chance to win.

Hopefully Ryan uses his scouting ability to find guys who can help the team, target them and spend the money needed. With their payroll they can afford just about anyone. There is no long term super stars on the roster who are going to need a huge pay raise in the next 3 years. So the team knows where they will be in the next 3-5 years salarywise.

If he thinks Grienke can help the team, get Grieke, they have the money to do it.
Same thing with about 3-4 other guys. Forget the money limits and find the guys who can stop this club from becoming an embarrassment. I am not asking for a team of all-stars...just a pitching staff that doesn't make me surprised when they go 5 innings and only let in 3 runs

nick5253
10-15-2012, 08:18 AM
I agree. The overall number doesn't really matter as much as fans like to think, it's what is done with the money. Going all out right now and adding an additional 50 mil to payroll would likely mean long term contracts that tie their own hands down the road. At best those deals are break-even and rarely, if ever, is there surpluss value. I would rather see the Twins do what they normally do - sign 2nd/3rd tier free agents to fill holes - but at a more exaggerated sense. IE if you think you need 2 free agent pitchers of that caliber, sign 3 or 4. Sign more depth across SP, bullpen & middle infielders. Contracts that are 1-2 years that don't hamstring you down the road and also give you guys you can 'flip' mid-season if things go terribly wrong again. The next wave of Twins talent is still 2-4 years away, so filling the gaps until then should be priority.

JB_Iowa
10-15-2012, 08:24 AM
I expect payroll to be at $91-$94 million (although I also expect Terry Ryan to cringe at spending that much). From a PR standpoint I just don't think that they are going to want to be seen as significantly cutting expenditures for next season.

It is about spending wisely. It is also about being able to conclude at least one (I'd prefer a couple) meaningful trade. I think Terry Ryan will do the former (Jason Marquis aside). The jury is definitely still out on the latter. We haven't seen a significant trade out of this organization in a long time -- all we've seen is a few gap-fillers or not much of anything trades at the deadline.

mike wants wins
10-15-2012, 08:26 AM
Signing mediocre guys gives you mediocre guys.......if they really want to win next year, that budget will need to be at least 115. I expect it to be under 90, and for them to stink next year. Who cares if they have big contracts that handicap them if they never go out and spend money, it is not the contracts, but the philosophy that handicaps them.

Brandon
10-15-2012, 08:40 AM
I think the best course from a PR standpoint is to bring in a starting pitcher with a name. Then bring in another one or preferably 2 that could be a low cost option incuding resigning scott baker. That gives the impression we are doing what we can to field a winner as then there would be numerous candidates for the rotation next year. Finding a solid SS wouldn't hurt either.

jharaldson
10-15-2012, 09:20 AM
Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80

Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_righ t_move_for_Twins010512

Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm

Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility.

What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.

Rosterman
10-15-2012, 09:58 AM
Last year the Twins had a contract with Blackburn, were paying a disabled Baker, somehow was eating $$$ with Toshi, Marquis was a bust here and adequate elsewhere. Not to mention the expensive look at Zumaya. Then you had Capps and Pavano not making their salary. We are strapped with the Mauer contract which is 1/4 of payroll. Morneau is an expensive liability, Just need to spend wisely. The other $100 million, the Twins need to spend on drafting, besides paying down their own debt to make the team even more profitable. Sadly, attendance can take a hit in 2013, which also means concessions take a hit, et al. And with no big names, you don't sell more jerseys and such. Be interesting to see the TwinsFest buzz this season.

tacky3
10-15-2012, 10:26 AM
I do believe that this team could get younger and better if we traded Mourneau and Span and replaced them in house with Parmalee and Revere. Not only would this possibly give us pitching help (depending on what the twins fetch in return) but it would free up more money to go out and grab two or three good (Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren, Edwin Jackson) free agents.

beckmt
10-15-2012, 10:28 AM
Revere has very little market value. I also feel the clubs with excess young pitching have limited budgets(TB,Seattle, Oakland) Most of them would rather that a Span and a Parmalee than any of the bigger payroll players(Willingham is also an eoption, but this creates another hole). I agree that spending wisely is the key, not the amount of money spent.

beckmt
10-15-2012, 10:30 AM
Was interesting to see what a writer thought the number was, it makes it harder for the Twins to justify not spending the money given that it was there.

Jim Crikket
10-15-2012, 10:32 AM
The problem with the Twins' philosophy is that they seem to expect fans to "prove" their loyalty first, before they increase their investment in talent. They want fans to show up in greater numbers to watch bad baseball and generate increased income before they'll increase payroll. What Nick suggests is that the Twins should invest first and trust that fans will show up in greater numbers to watch the improved product. That, however, would require that the Pohlads trust their baseball people (specifically GM and Manager) to spend the money wisely and manage the talent wisely enough to get those improved results on the field. I'm just not sure that trust exists right now. If we see a payroll in the $95-100 million range, we'll know it is. If payroll is cut back to $85-90 million, we'll also know what that means.

Highabove
10-15-2012, 01:05 PM
The Twins will never talk about the years that they underpaid the payroll. In 2008-09, the payroll was not even close to 50% of revenue.
As a result, the Twins pretax earnings were in the upper third of Baseball.

Payroll Revenue
2008: $57 million $158 million
2009: $65 million $162 million
2010: $97 million $213 million

Pretax earnings
2008 6th 27.2 million
2009 9th 25 million

iastfan112
10-15-2012, 03:57 PM
Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80

Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_righ t_move_for_Twins010512

Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm

Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility.

What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.

Read comprehension not your forte? The new contract doesn't kick in until 2014 as stated in the article thus that isn't realized revenue. Not only that, but, you failed to account for the old contract as well when doing math. Since the article said it was "An over 100% increase", lets keep the math simple and halve that 52 million a year. So 17(increase FSN deal)+5(stadium)+26(Increase mlb deal)= 48 million. Add that to 143 divide by two you get 95.5 million as a base in 2014.

Now lets extrapolate at bit. Lets try to find out how much more value Target Field adds per year. Take our base (143+5+17)/2=82.5. Last years payroll was 100 million. Subtract the 82.5 from the 100 x2= ~35 million more in revenue yearly than the Metrodome did in 2007. Seems about right to me.
That said, still think the Polhad's are money grubbing cheapskates. I truly doubt that with every corresponding increase in revenue that background costs are doubling as well. Percentage wise they probably are making about the same but I'd be willing to be they're banking significantly more than they were just a few years ago.

Winston Smith
10-15-2012, 04:17 PM
They should spend whatever it takes to give us a good team. They are the richest owners in pro sports, if they lose a few million it's like most of us getting that big gas bill in Jan. It puts a dent in the wallet but you get by.

Target field is a cash cow and the fans spending the cash and helping pay off the field deserve better than what we've had the last 2 years.

jharaldson
10-15-2012, 05:03 PM
Read comprehension not your forte? The new contract doesn't kick in until 2014 as stated in the article thus that isn't realized revenue. Not only that, but, you failed to account for the old contract as well when doing math. Since the article said it was "An over 100% increase", lets keep the math simple and halve that 52 million a year. So 17(increase FSN deal)+5(stadium)+26(Increase mlb deal)= 48 million. Add that to 143 divide by two you get 95.5 million as a base in 2014.

Now lets extrapolate at bit. Lets try to find out how much more value Target Field adds per year. Take our base (143+5+17)/2=82.5. Last years payroll was 100 million. Subtract the 82.5 from the 100 x2= ~35 million more in revenue yearly than the Metrodome did in 2007. Seems about right to me.

The old contract was worth $23.7 million a year leaving the net growth at $28 million which you have correctly, if in somewhat of a rude manner, pointed out should be counted in 2014.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/04/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/MLBTV.aspx

If you build in for basic inflation the $143 million base goes up to $159 million.

http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=143&year1=2007&year2=2012

159 (Base w/ inflation) + 5 (Stadium) + 17 (FSN) = $181 Million / 2 = $90 Million payroll Metrodome could have supported.

The $10 million dollar gap between the Metrodome possible amount and the Target Field Payroll of $100 million equals around ~$20 million revenue jump at Target Field which I don't buy, especially when estimates were $50-$70 million.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/08/twins-ballpark-finance/

TwinsMusings
10-15-2012, 07:10 PM
I have trouble getting very excited about payroll discussions because the public information on total revenue of the Twins (a private corporation) is not complete and not knowing how much the total revenue is makes it difficult to project what "50-52%" really is. For example, I have trouble believing the Twins actually spent 50% of total revenue on payroll in 2010. No responsible business would BUDGET for 100% attendance. Their budget may have projected 50% based on expected revenue, but I'd be very surprised if income did not greatly exceed budget expectations in 2010.

For 2013, I expect the Twins management will project lower revenue from attendance, but that does not mean overall revenue will be lower. We will never know all of the rest of the revenue.

Based on what Pohlad and Ryan have been reported as saying publicly, I expect the 2013 payroll to be whatever Terry Ryan decides it should be. They may have a target number, but philosophy, longer term projections, and availability of players to fit the philosophy and projections will have more to do with the final number than any hard and fast budget decision.

If I had to guess right now, I'd say somewhere between $90 and $100 million will be where he ends up projecting around opening day.

jorgenswest
10-15-2012, 07:33 PM
The payroll this year ranked about where you expect to find a midmarket team.

Payroll is also a difficult target. Is 94 million the final number for this year? Did it include Nishioka, Marquis ( who I think we paid over a full season, Zumaya, Baker and Liriano savings. Shouldn't it include any buyouts (Nathan?)? Those must be accounted for somewhere. How does the increased money spent on higher draft picks fit in?

If we cared, we should really seek the amount of money put back in the organization. How do we rank in money spent developing prospects? The medical staff? Scouting? Front office?

I am all for dropping payroll and going younger next year if it means that money saved could be spent wisely developing our farm system, getting the best scouts and monitoring the health of our players.

darin617
10-15-2012, 07:42 PM
Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80

Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_righ t_move_for_Twins010512

Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm

Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility.

What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.

They would never pull something like that now would they? You could also factor in the increased value of the team thanks to their great stadium deal that they barely paid half of the cost. You could go on and on with added things. That is why they are rich because they keep changing their numbers and don't really have to answer to anyone on how they decide how much to spend on payroll...

Jack Torse
10-16-2012, 04:15 PM
Jim Pohlad said last off season that he had a difficult time investing more money into a 99 loss team. I doubt 96 losses changes his thinking much. I think we know where next season's payroll is headed. Looks like two nights of golf league next summer.

glunn
10-16-2012, 07:28 PM
I wonder whether an additional $1 million per year spent on better scouts and minor league coaching might eventually save $10 million on having to pick up free agents to cover holes in the lineup. If there were good pitching prospects coming up next year, then no one would be thinking much about Greinke and other mega-expensive free agents. The Twins pitching prospect list is weak, and it seems to me that this should be blamed on poor scouting and/or mistakes by the front office, and that the best way to spend more money may be on improving the selection of prospects.

kab21
10-16-2012, 08:48 PM
The payroll should be anywhere between 85-110M next year. The biggest problem that I have with any of the 'Twins don't spend enough because...' complaints is that spending 40+M in one offseason can only result in bad long term contracts that won't give the twins much flexibility in the future. I think the Twins should spend as much as they can as long as they can limit it to 1, 2 or possibly even 3 year contracts. Being a realist the Twins probably end up with a 90ish M payroll. My expectations/hopes are something like 3/30 for a veteran pitcher, 2/10 for a guy like Scutaro and 5M or so for a guy like Baker.

ThePuck
10-17-2012, 01:31 PM
'The rise to $112 million last year was purportedly the result of a push to take the next step after falling short in the 2010 postseason.'

Except that's not what really happened. They didn't go for it. They did the opposite. They didn't go after starting pitching, which would have been an attempt to push to the next level. Instead they gutted the middle infield and the bullpen in 2011. The rise in payroll was due to rises in payroll from contracts already on the books along with arbitration pay rises and Nishi.

There was no attempt to IMPROVE the roster...they noticeably made it worse. Just like they did after the 2006 season. Probably figured, wow, we won a lot of games, we can probably back off and still compete for the division title...which is our only true goal.

ThePuck
10-17-2012, 01:32 PM
'The rise to $112 million last year was purportedly the result of a push to take the next step after falling short in the 2010 postseason.'

Except that's not what really happened. They didn't go for it. They did the opposite. They didn't go after starting pitching, which would have been an attempt to push to the next level. Instead they gutted the middle infield and the bullpen in 2011. The rise in payroll was due to rises in payroll from contracts already on the books along with arbitration pay rises and Nishi.

There was no attempt to IMPROVE the roster...they noticeably made it worse. Just like they did after the 2006 season. Probably figured, wow, we won a lot of games, we can probably back off and still compete for the division title...which is our only true goal.

Nick Nelson
10-17-2012, 09:24 PM
Except that's not what really happened. They didn't go for it. They did the opposite. They didn't go after starting pitching, which would have been an attempt to push to the next level. Instead they gutted the middle infield and the bullpen in 2011. The rise in payroll was due to rises in payroll from contracts already on the books along with arbitration pay rises and Nishi.
Untrue. The Twins could have let free agents Carl Pavano and Jim Thome walk, but stretched payroll beyond the level they were comfortable with in order to keep the team together and make another run.

USAFChief
10-17-2012, 09:46 PM
I think the idea that a $112m payroll is "beyond the level they were comfortable with" tells us all we really need to know about Twins ownership.

DBTwinsFan
10-17-2012, 09:46 PM
I'm not sure what the payroll should be for 2013, but the answer to the question "Where should payroll sit in 2013?" unfortunately will be in Pohlad's bank account......

johnnydakota
10-17-2012, 11:19 PM
I do believe that this team could get younger and better if we traded Mourneau and Span and replaced them in house with Parmalee and Revere. Not only would this possibly give us pitching help (depending on what the twins fetch in return) but it would free up more money to go out and grab two or three good (Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren, Edwin Jackson) free agents.
with terry ryan in charge ? a handful of magic beans and a soft tossing contoll type pitcher like boof bonser or kevin slowey..

kab21
10-17-2012, 11:25 PM
I think the idea that a $112m payroll is "beyond the level they were comfortable with" tells us all we really need to know about Twins ownership.
I think the idea that 112M isn't enough tells all we really need to know about some Twins fans.

johnnydakota
10-17-2012, 11:27 PM
if you took the 2011 payroll and adjusted a modest 7%inflation to it then 2012 would be 120million and this up coming season would be 130 million ,which is what the twins need to spend to be competitive in 2013, but they need the right guy spending the money not cury ryan ...this guy thought boof bonser was the key plaer in the a.j trade,he got nothing for santana(remember even when bill was g.m. terry was his advisior and had imput on every trade and transaction) we got 20 grand for thome in 2011 and in 2012 the phillys got 2 top 10 prospects , so with this bafoon in charge you might as well cut payroll to 30 million

and for those keeping track of revenue, dont forget what the twins recieve from mlb internet broadcasts ... in .2011 , slightly over 2 billion split between 30 teams

USAFChief
10-17-2012, 11:52 PM
I think the idea that 112M isn't enough tells all we really need to know about some Twins fans.

That we expect ownership to want to win at least as much as we do?

That we expect them to make a $130m-ish contribution to Target Field, like they promised, rather than take their contribution out of revenues and, in fact, contribute NOTHING out of pocket towards their new stadium?

That we expect them to at least honor their oft-stated "52% of revenues to payroll" promise, which doesn't even factor in the fact there is no reason that percentage should have to stay as low as 52% with the move to TF, since other expenses didn't jump proportionately?

That simple math tells us $112M in 2011 barely--at best--constitutes the promised 52%, yet is referred to by this writer as "beyond their comfort level" and everyone seems to buy that?

Is that what it tells you about "some fans?"

Shane Wahl
10-18-2012, 12:15 AM
The Twins could compete for the division next year at slightly under $100 million. If they wanted to find a way to buy a SS, that might push it to $103-105 or so.

I sometimes think the people forget just how much money was wasted in 2012 on Pavano, Baker, Liriano, Blackburn, Capps, Marquis, and Nishioka. About $25 million or so spent plus arbitration increases and the Twins are back at the original 2012 payroll. That money could be spent on Edwin Jackson and Shaun Marcum, Marcum, Blanton, and Saunders, or Marcum, Blanton, and X shortstop, etc. To ignore how much any of those options would improve the team is rather preposterous. Add a few million guaranteed to Baker and hope that he earns another $4 or 5 in incentives and this team really could win the division. AGAIN, for the millionth time, the lineup at 100% was pretty good even with a bad starting rotation.

Shane Wahl
10-18-2012, 12:19 AM
I think the idea that 112M isn't enough tells all we really need to know about some Twins fans.

That we expect ownership to want to win at least as much as we do?

That we expect them to make a $130m-ish contribution to Target Field, like they promised, rather than take their contribution out of revenues and, in fact, contribute NOTHING out of pocket towards their new stadium?

That we expect them to at least honor their oft-stated "52% of revenues to payroll" promise, which doesn't even factor in the fact there is no reason that percentage should have to stay as low as 52% with the move to TF, since other expenses didn't jump proportionately?

That simple math tells us $112M in 2011 barely--at best--constitutes the promised 52%, yet is referred to by this writer as "beyond their comfort level" and everyone seems to buy that?

Is that what it tells you about "some fans?"

Nice. I agree. There is ESPECIALLY an issue in 2013 (and there WAS this issue in 2012 as well) given that the future would indicate a roster dominated by team-controlled players like Hicks, Arcia, Sano, Rosario, Gibson, Hendriks, et all. Payroll is going to naturally go down in the future when the youth movement moves to the majors. So why not spend more EVEN IF ONLY to trade the players later?

ThePuck
10-18-2012, 06:55 AM
Except that's not what really happened. They didn't go for it. They did the opposite. They didn't go after starting pitching, which would have been an attempt to push to the next level. Instead they gutted the middle infield and the bullpen in 2011. The rise in payroll was due to rises in payroll from contracts already on the books along with arbitration pay rises and Nishi.
Untrue. The Twins could have let free agents Carl Pavano and Jim Thome walk, but stretched payroll beyond the level they were comfortable with in order to keep the team together and make another run.

But that is bringing back the SAME players...that wasn't IMPROVING the team that had just got swept out of the ALDS...AGAIN (And one was a 40 year old part time DH). So, how does that show they are going for it and improving the team to push to the next level? Especially when you consider:

A: They still didn't do anything to upgrade the starting pitching from what it was in 2010. They went into spring training with 'six major league starting pitchers 'competing' for the five spots'. None of them were new.
B: They still gutted their fine bullpen.
C: They still dismantled their middle infield.

How is that going for it and improving their team from what they had in 2010?

Nick Nelson
10-18-2012, 10:53 AM
But that is bringing back the SAME players...that wasn't IMPROVING the team that had just got swept out of the ALDS...AGAIN (And one was a 40 year old part time DH). So, how does that show they are going for it and improving the team to push to the next level? Especially when you consider:

A: They still didn't do anything to upgrade the starting pitching from what it was in 2010. They went into spring training with 'six major league starting pitchers 'competing' for the five spots'. None of them were new.
B: They still gutted their fine bullpen.
C: They still dismantled their middle infield.

How is that going for it and improving their team from what they had in 2010?
You can certainly argue with the quality of the plan (I sure did). I'm not breaking any ground here, though. They have said multiple times that they stretched payroll to bring back Pavano and Thome, which accounts for most of the increase from 2010 to 2011. That is their publicly held stance, which is why I used the word "purportedly."

ThePuck
10-18-2012, 11:09 AM
[QUOTE=ThePuck;58673]
You can certainly argue with the quality of the plan (I sure did). I'm not breaking any ground here, though. They have said multiple times that they stretched payroll to bring back Pavano and Thome, which accounts for most of the increase from 2010 to 2011. That is their publicly held stance, which is why I used the word "purportedly."

Okay, but here's the thing. Payroll went up 15M from 2010 to 2011. Pavano and Thome were on the 2010 roster. They only got 2.5 million more between them for 2011. 2.5M, that's it. A 1M raise for Pavano and a 1.5 M raise for Thome. That's less than 20% of the 15M increase.

Yes, I know Pavano got 8M and Thome got 3M for 2011, but that whole amount wasn't fresh money coming onto payroll. Their 2010 salaries were already on the books for our team that had a payroll of 97.5M. They weren't brought in to add on to the 97.5M 2010 team. Look at it this way, we take them off the roster, taking away the 7M and 1.5M they made, that drops it to 89 M. Then bring them back by adding the 11M with their new 2011 salaries. That's 100M.

Nick Nelson
10-18-2012, 11:17 AM
I understand that. They were both free agents. The Twins could have let them both walk and saved ~12M. Keeping them wasn't about actively changing the makeup of the team, it was about trying to "keep the band together" as much as possible and make another run after a successful 2010 campaign. You're preaching to the choir about the shortcomings of this plan, but – again – that was their stance.

kab21
10-18-2012, 12:08 PM
Okay, but here's the thing. Payroll went up 15M from 2010 to 2011. Pavano and Thome were on the 2010 roster. They only got 2.5 million more between them for 2011. 2.5M, that's it. A 1M raise for Pavano and a 1.5 M raise for Thome. That's less than 20% of the 15M increase.

Yes, I know Pavano got 8M and Thome got 3M for 2011, but that whole amount wasn't fresh money coming onto payroll. Their 2010 salaries were already on the books for our team that had a payroll of 97.5M. They weren't brought in to add on to the 97.5M 2010 team. Look at it this way, we take them off the roster, taking away the 7M and 1.5M they made, that drops it to 89 M. Then bring them back by adding the 11M with their new 2011 salaries. That's 100M.

Here's the thing - at some point this happens to teams that are successful for 10 years. Teams get old and it becomes very difficult to simply maintain the team much less add new players. tbh - We've been spoiled by a decade of winning.

ThePuck
10-18-2012, 12:28 PM
'Here's the thing - at some point this happens to teams that are successful for 10 years. Teams get old and it becomes very difficult to simply maintain the team much less add new players. tbh - We've been spoiled by a decade of winning.'

our discussion centered around whether or not that spike rise in payroll in 2011 was ownership's way of trying to push us over the edge from 2010 to 2011. If you follow the back and forth discussion, you'll see that. I believe I made a case that wasn't really the case, considering they gutted the middle IF and the bullpen and didn't use the money to address any new starting pitching. I don't know how that can be viewed as ownership trying to push us over the top after a very impressive 2010 season.

As far as your point, I'm not sure that we should just be okay with the declining years that have started and may continue for another couple...not when our core of position players are still solid and relatively young and not when the declining years happen a year after the new ballpark opens...a ballpark that the taxpayers were told was needed to keep us competitive. Cutting payroll after a 99 loss season and likely doing it again after a 96 loss season, is cause for concern.

Jim Crikket
10-18-2012, 01:12 PM
I'm one of many who wrote last fall that there was no reason for the Twins to slash payroll the way they did. In fact, it was exactly the wrong thing to do. At the very least, the 2011 level should have been retained. Does anyone think the Twins would have lost 96 games if Terry Ryan would have had, say, another $15 million to spend on two decent starting pitchers? Of course, both of them could have come down with bilateral arm weakness and been "day to day" from May through September, but IF Ryan had chosen two starting pitchers to spend $15 million on and had done so as wisely as he chose Willingham and Doumit, this would have been a far different season and the Pohlads wouldn't be fretting about having lost hundreds of thousands in attendance.

So going back to the original question of this thread, where should the 2013 payroll sit? It should be exactly where it was in 2011 because it shouldn't have been cut in 2012. This stuff Ryan spouts about money not being the issue is just crapola that he has to say for public consumption because he knows it will do him no good with his ownership to tell the truth.

"It takes money to make money," "you get what you pay for," and "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity," are cliches. But they became cliches because they're true. Cutting payroll last year had a direct negative effect on the product on the field and a crappy product on the field (again) had a direct negative effect on attendance/revenue. Cutting payroll further in 2013 and expecting a different result would be insane.

ThePuck
10-18-2012, 01:26 PM
They blamed last season on injuries plain and simple. They were able to sell that idea. Then they try and sell the idea that 112M was overspending in an attempt to push us over the top, that what they spent this year was more in-line with what they really should have spent in 2011, but they forgot to mention they didn't really bring anyone in when that payroll rose and they dropped their middle IF, gutted their bullpen and ignored starting pitching needs.

Perhaps they really thought a healthy Span, Morneau and Mauer would garner quite a bit more wins...and maybe their returns should have allowed us to have more wins (especially since the division got even weaker)...but by not improving the pitching, and ignoring the middle infield, the team couldn't turn it around.

johnnydakota
10-21-2012, 03:55 PM
Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80

Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_righ t_move_for_Twins010512

Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm

Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility.

What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.
mlb gameday internet sales of over 12.5 million subscriptions was divide evenly among the 30 teams or about 67 million per team .....