PDA

View Full Version : Sid: Pohlads Ready To Spend



Parker Hageman
10-04-2013, 03:57 PM
In keeping with the line that has been conveyed to the media and season ticket holders, Minnesota Twins owner Jim Pohlad reaffirmed that he will be allowing for more spending in 2013 – suggesting that he will go beyond the 54% of gross revenue that has been typical of teams.

In conversation with the Star Tribune’s Sid Hartman (http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/226239091.html), Pohlad said:


“I don’t think so,” Pohlad said. “I think we know that that is always going to be a range every year, and we’re well below that this year. That will not be a limiting factor, I don’t think, this year.

“[Spending] is going to be up to Terry” he added, referring to General Manager Terry Ryan. “He has not asked for a number [of how much he can spend]. He doesn’t historically ask for a hard and fast number. He brings to us the opportunities that are available and he’s reasonable and we’re beyond reasonable [for next season], I think. We want this to be better.”

Pohlad then reiterated that the team would not be handing out long-term contracts to aging players:


“I’m sure fans are frustrated; people are frustrated as a result of losing, and we’re frustrated, too,” he said. “But I don’t think that’s a result of us not spending money. We’re willing to do that. We’ll do whatever we can in 2014. We’re not going to be ridiculous. You’re not going to see us doing seven- to 10-year contracts for players later in their career. You’re not going to see that happening, but long-term contracts we’re open to, within reason.”

This issue, of course, is that the majority of free agents tend to be later in their careers and anyone after 30 years is in decline or approaching decline anyways. Still, could they sign a guy like Tim Lincecum, Phil Hughes, Josh Johnson or Ricky Nolasco to a multi-year deal? For that type of talent, the Twins may need to invest $15M a year for four years, similar to the contract that Anibal Sanchez signed with Detroit. With less than $50M in payroll heading into 2013, it should be easily feasible.

In all, Pohlad is saying the right things in his talking points – the team is frustrated and the willingness to spend (within reason) is there. We’ll see how it works out in practice.

nicksaviking
10-04-2013, 04:08 PM
In all, Pohlad is saying the right things in his talking points – the team is frustrated and the willingness to spend (within reason) is there. We’ll see how it works out in practice.

Pohlad is saying the right things and Ryan needs to continue the rhetoric. Ryan complained about free agents not wanting to come here last year weeks after saying that he didn't think there were many good free agents available. Way to butter them up Terry.

Having an owner throw around quotes like this is a pretty big step in the right direction. Let everyone know the Twins are open for business and are willing to spend to help the cause. Of course free agents don't want to come here if it looks like they will be a lone acquisition on a losing team. I'll bet they will come here if it looks like you are trying to assemble an ensamble cast to mesh with a load of young talent. Look at Cleveland last year. Ryan better not drop the ball on this, I'd like to hear him re-itterate this sentiment soon which will help free agent rumors mention Minnesota as a reasonable landing spot.

Parker Hageman
10-04-2013, 04:58 PM
Of course free agents don't want to come here if it looks like they will be a lone acquisition on a losing team. I'll bet they will come here if it looks like you are trying to assemble an ensamble cast to mesh with a load of young talent. Look at Cleveland last year.

I do like what Cleveland did this past offseason but I think they were successful by waiting for the market to develop rather than attack it. Swisher was signed in November but Bourne was signed mid-February (credit the Indians for letting the CF market run dry and getting him at a reduced rate, I guess). However, the Indians had a strong core and high-upside arms in the rotation (a huge difference between the Twins and Indians).

If you are the Twins, you just are going to sell free agents on the two-year plan -- building towards 2014/2015.

Nick Nelson
10-04-2013, 05:17 PM
We’re not going to be ridiculous. You’re not going to see us doing seven- to 10-year contracts for players later in their career. You’re not going to see that happening, but long-term contracts we’re open to, within reason.
This is the second interview where I've seen Pohlad make this same comment. Is he just exaggerating or does he actually think anyone expects the Minnesota Twins to pursue a player who would require a 7+ year contract, of which there are maybe 2-3 every offseason?

drivlikejehu
10-04-2013, 05:18 PM
This is completely consistent with everything we've seen before. Pohlad says the money is there, Ryan doesn't spend it, for whatever reason(s).

The length of contract issue is one obvious canard. It doesn't matter in the least and Pohlad knows that. Only present value matters, up until the point where cash flow becomes a problem. The Pohlad family's resources far, far exceed any conceivable cash flow problem that could arise from a normal MLB payroll.

Teams do not sign players to a 7-year deal thinking that year 7 is going to be great. The back end is, to varying degrees, deferred compensation for services performed in the early years of the contract. GMs have a strong incentive to make deals like this, because they want to do better in the short-term to keep their job and worry about the back-end later.

Now, if Ryan objects to this strategy, and has job security that renders it irrelevant, that's fine. Just pay more up front. Players and agents have no incentive to delay compensation and so they certainly would be receptive to the idea.

Having said that, Ryan isn't going to become aggressive in free agency. He has said so over and over again. Pohlad is just deflecting criticism and paying Ryan to eat it instead.

JB_Iowa
10-04-2013, 05:35 PM
Season ticket renewals, anyone?

Seriously, I think Pohlad pretty much stays out of it on the money front; however, I also think that part of the thought process in re-hiring Terry Ryan as GM was a love for his frugal ways. The Pohlads don't need to put the brakes on player payroll because they know that TR is more conservative than they are.

I'll be interested to see how all of this plays out. Until I see genuine movement into the free agent market, I will remain a skeptic.

And yes, they may have to "overpay" in dollars especially when they aren't willing to pay in years. I'm not sure what "short term" means exactly but I'm betting that 3 years stretches it. (BTW, the Twinkie Town article on "overpaying" in dollars and years to get free agent movement was an intriguing one: Bringing Free Agents to a Losing Team: The Loss Leader Strategy - Twinkie Town (http://www.twinkietown.com/2013/10/2/4792350/minnesota-twins-free-agent-challenges-of-a-losing-team-loss-leader-strategy)).

twinscowboysbulls
10-04-2013, 08:04 PM
The thing with the Twins is that they act like one bad contract is going to potentially bankrupt the team. If you never take any risks, you will never reap any rewards. TR needs to understand to get better, you have to take risks sometimes! It gets ridiculous year after year when hearing the same hoopla from the owner and management. Either open up your wallet or prepare to go back to the mid 90's.

Spicoli
10-04-2013, 09:52 PM
We all know what this means. They are gonna spend more than last year but only because we got rid of Morneau and a couple other players contracts. So yes they will spend more but the opening payroll will probably be the same as this years. So it may appear hes spending more but hes not lol. They will probably just get a couple more Worleys or Correias.

ThePuck
10-04-2013, 09:53 PM
The Twins payroll will be lower than the payroll we started the season with...and 2015 will be too.

TheLeviathan
10-04-2013, 10:05 PM
Less talk, more do. Then I'll buy into this.

snepp
10-04-2013, 10:07 PM
At least they're saying the right things, that's something isn't it?



Hopefully six months from now we're not dredging up these comments to complain about how empty they are yet again.

darin617
10-04-2013, 11:29 PM
[QUOTE=Parker Hageman;170789]In keeping with the line that has been conveyed to the media and season ticket holders, Minnesota Twins owner Jim Pohlad reaffirmed that he will be allowing for more spending in 2013 – suggesting that he will go beyond the 54% of gross revenue that has been typical of teams.

That is hilarious! So you mean the Twins have been losing money ever since Target Field? 54% more like 35-40% of gross profits if they are lucky. Too bad nobody talented will want to sign here. My prediction is there big signing will be Josh Johnson to a 1YR deal and he will get straightened out here and leave for more money the following year.

North Dakota Twins Fan
10-05-2013, 01:41 AM
Gardenhire had a conversation before he signed the extension and the understanding is that the payroll will increase. Now Terry Ryan just has to spend it which has been the problem.
I like the "Less talk more do" comment on this thread. Fan patience is wearing thin and we need pitchers. Buxton and Sano are blue chip prospects but thats not enough to win a WS. We still need starting pitchers that can get through 5 innings.
I think the payroll will increase for next year. I just can't see it going even lower then it already is. I'm also a huge Twins homer and at times quite gullible. :o)

Also my parents wouldn't let me stay up and watch game 7 of the '91 series because it was a school night. Can we please win another one so I can watch it live?

clutterheart
10-05-2013, 07:38 AM
What was the payroll to revenue this year?

old nurse
10-05-2013, 08:02 AM
Four little pesky problems
1. The Twins need impact players.
2. So do other teams
3. There really aren't that many of them available.
4. Parameters to sign players puts a little bit of a limit on what they can do.

I think the decline years they reference in the statement are the late years of the A-rod contract. There is decline and still great and older like Carlos Beltran, or Derek Jeter. Injury history and commitment to training and not the age number is what you need to look at

diehardtwinsfan
10-05-2013, 09:11 AM
The words are encouraging. The question is how they are going to do it. Personally, I'm not a fan of huge deals for what I see on the FA market (minus Cano, but I don't see the Twins going in that direction). A 3, maybe 4, year deal for a Hughes type guy would be smart. Spending big money on Lincecum, Johnson, and some of these other names tossed about wouldn't be that smart of a move at all.

I do hope the Twins do some spending, but the guys I think warrant the longer term deals are Tanaka and the two Cuban defectors, one of whom will spend time in the minors. I think that's the right course of action, though I'm not sure that this will make 2014 significantly better.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 09:42 AM
The words are encouraging. The question is how they are going to do it. Personally, I'm not a fan of huge deals for what I see on the FA market (minus Cano, but I don't see the Twins going in that direction). A 3, maybe 4, year deal for a Hughes type guy would be smart. Spending big money on Lincecum, Johnson, and some of these other names tossed about wouldn't be that smart of a move at all.

I do hope the Twins do some spending, but the guys I think warrant the longer term deals are Tanaka and the two Cuban defectors, one of whom will spend time in the minors. I think that's the right course of action, though I'm not sure that this will make 2014 significantly better. If I'm not mistaken we are down to 1 Cuban defector and of course Tanaka is a crapshoot. If we sign a Hughes type plus one, I believe we can get reasonably close to .500. Last season was open auditions, I'm hoping this season ends as a dress rehearsal. I understand I'm one of the few, but I think the rebuild has made good progress and the 2014 draft will help answer a lot of questions also. I never really appreciated the benefits of drafting high year after year, that is no longer the case.

drivlikejehu
10-05-2013, 09:52 AM
The total cost for Tanaka will be somewhat high due to the posting fee, but the Twins could easily sign him and stay well under their alleged budget. There are no pitchers on the FA market that will get mega contracts, so given the Twins' budget room (again, based off their likely fictional budget) they could basically sign whoever they want.

Instead the Twins are talking about Swarzak, Duensing, etc. as starting options. I just don't understand how anyone can actually expect them to improve the rotation via free agency when Ryan says over and over he won't do that. The line from the Twins is 100% clear - we have budget room and won't use it, period, end of story.

Alex
10-05-2013, 10:04 AM
If I'm not mistaken we are down to 1 Cuban defector and of course Tanaka is a crapshoot. If we sign a Hughes type plus one, I believe we can get reasonable close to .500. Last season was open auditions, I'm hoping this season ends as a dress rehearsal. I understand I'm one of the few, but I think the rebuild has made good progress and the 2014 draft will help answer a lot of questions also. I never really appreciated the benefits of drafting high year after year, that is no longer the case.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the minor league development and farm system have been great (but only a small part of that is due to current management) Overall, the question will be wether three or more 90 loss seasons were inevitable and unavoidable for the major league club (edit: the ones we've just been through).

ThePuck
10-05-2013, 10:30 AM
I just don't understand how anyone can actually expect them to improve the rotation via free agency when Ryan says over and over he won't do that.

Simple answer to that...simply because he said they would. He said that last offseason too, and it was believed then too.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 11:14 AM
I don't think anyone disagrees that the minor league development and farm system have been great (but only a small part of that is due to management) but overall, the question will be wether three or more 90 loss seasons inevitable and unavoidable for the major league club.Way too early to write off the future. I think Ryan said 15-18 will be off the 40 man roster. I counted 7 possible core types who made it to Target Field this season and I have 5 more who will make it sometime next season. I fully understand they will not all be stars, nor do they have to be. An OP once said you can compete and/or contend will a flawed roster and this has been proven time and time again. I wouldn't think many would agree with you, that 3 or more 90 loss seasons are inevitable or unavoidable.

big dog
10-05-2013, 11:28 AM
I'm pinning a lot of hope on Tanaka- not necessarily winning the rights, but making a really large offer, more than a token. If some team goes completely nuts and puts up $80 million or something just for the signing rights, fine. But we need to be in the game, and hopefully win it.

I just don't see the chances of us getting a big free agent, even by offering the money. I'm looking at this solely from the player's perspective. Suppose you're Ellsbury. You're in the playoffs right now. You just spent last year in a terrible situation. You were on good teams before that. You are going to get a huge amount of money. Would you be willing to take even more money and risk going back to Boston-under-Valentine losing situation?

I would take my really big contract offer from a team with a good chance to win, over my ridiculously big contract offer to potentially lose 90 games, every time. Especially if that losing team had a stud centerfielder in the minors. If a player is all about the money, that's fine- as long as you want a player that only cares about the money.

Alex
10-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Way too early to write off the future. I think Ryan said 15-18 will be off the 40 man roster. I counted 7 possible core types who made it to Target Field this season and I have 5 more who will make it sometime next season. I fully understand they will not all be stars, nor do they have to be. An OP once said you can compete and/or contend will a flawed roster and this has been proven time and time again. I wouldn't think many would agree with you, that 3 or more 90 loss seasons are inevitable or unavoidable.

Huh? You must have completely misread my response. Who wrote off the future? I said "...3 90 loss seasons or more," as in the ones we've been through. I then asked a question: Were those three 90 loss seasons avoidable? As in, were they necessary for the rebuild? My answer is no, the were not necessary and poor management, talent evaluation, and sitting on hands is what caused them (well, at least the last two).

Mr. Brooks
10-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Way too early to write off the future. I think Ryan said 15-18 will be off the 40 man roster. I counted 7 possible core types who made it to Target Field this season and I have 5 more who will make it sometime next season. I fully understand they will not all be stars, nor do they have to be. An OP once said you can compete and/or contend will a flawed roster and this has been proven time and time again. I wouldn't think many would agree with you, that 3 or more 90 loss seasons are inevitable or unavoidable.

I would really like to see that list of the 7 "core" players who made their debut this year.

Alex
10-05-2013, 11:49 AM
I would really like to see that list of the 7 "core" players who made their debut this year.

I assume he didn't mean debut. That would allow for Mauer, Pinto, Dozier, Perkins, Hicks and Gibson, but I can't figure out the other one (unless it's a relief pitcher).

big dog
10-05-2013, 11:58 AM
I assume he didn't mean debut. That would allow for Mauer, Pinto, Dozier, Perkins, Hicks and Gibson, but I can't figure out the other one (unless it's a relief pitcher).
Arcia.

Alex
10-05-2013, 11:59 AM
Arcia.

HAHA. Completely thought I had typed him but he must have been too obvious!

So, the five next season must be Sano, Rosario, Buxton, and Meyer and May (or Stewart?)?

I don't have much hope for May anymore, sadly.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 12:06 PM
I assume he didn't mean debut. That would allow for Mauer, Pinto, Dozier, Perkins, Hicks and Gibson, but I can't figure out the other one (unless it's a relief pitcher).Alex, I apologize again to you, I did misread your post. I also included Arcia, Thielbar, Presley, and Pressly. My exact words were, possible core types.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 12:18 PM
Alex, I apologize again to you, I did misread your post. I also included Arcia, Thielbar, Presley, and Pressly. My exact words were, possible core types.

The two Presses are not core types, especially Presley. I have to wonder if people don't somehow believe that he is 24 or something???

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 12:20 PM
HAHA. Completely thought I had typed him but he must have been too obvious!

So, the five next season must be Sano, Rosario, Buxton, and Meyer and May (or Stewart?)?

I don't have much hope for May anymore, sadly.

May's 2013 improvement was adequate. 2014 in AAA will be pretty telling. If he repeats these numbers while advancing, I can see backend upside and that is fine.

Oldgoat_MN
10-05-2013, 12:37 PM
Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.
He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.
He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.
He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling.

Alex
10-05-2013, 12:44 PM
May's 2013 improvement was adequate. 2014 in AAA will be pretty telling. If he repeats these numbers while advancing, I can see backend upside and that is fine.

That's fair, but I guess I was hoping for more than a back of the rotation pitcher, which he could be with more control but time is running out for him to figure it out.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 12:59 PM
Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.
He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.
He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.
He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling. He was the one I was thinking about also. I would like to get a veteran lefty. Let Diamond and Albers fight it out in Rochester.

drivlikejehu
10-05-2013, 01:20 PM
I just don't see the chances of us getting a big free agent, even by offering the money. I'm looking at this solely from the player's perspective. Suppose you're Ellsbury. You're in the playoffs right now. You just spent last year in a terrible situation. You were on good teams before that. You are going to get a huge amount of money. Would you be willing to take even more money and risk going back to Boston-under-Valentine losing situation?



We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.

USAFChief
10-05-2013, 03:11 PM
Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.
He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.
He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.
He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling.
I would be totally on board with Kazmir.

He's obviously had problems in the last few years, but he's also a guy that was good enough to debut in the big leagues at 20, and was for a couple years one of the most highly thought of youngsters in the game.

You might get nothing, but if a guy like that finally puts it together, you'll actually have something. To me that's a much better gamble for a team in the Twins position than signing somebody who has a higher floor, but also a much lower ceiling.

diehardtwinsfan
10-05-2013, 08:03 PM
If I'm not mistaken we are down to 1 Cuban defector and of course Tanaka is a crapshoot. If we sign a Hughes type plus one, I believe we can get reasonably close to .500. Last season was open auditions, I'm hoping this season ends as a dress rehearsal. I understand I'm one of the few, but I think the rebuild has made good progress and the 2014 draft will help answer a lot of questions also. I never really appreciated the benefits of drafting high year after year, that is no longer the case.

You are mistaken. A pitcher defected last month. Expected to need some minor league time though.

Spicoli
10-06-2013, 03:20 AM
We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.


I have been on this site for almost a year now(I had other names) and I feel like you are the only other person that truly gets what the Twins are all about. I know a lot of people on here know baseball but I feel like a bunch of them defend the Twins just because they don't know what else to do. They would rather do that than except that we are hopeless. What you just said is exactly what im thinking. And I also feel like I cant give a true explanation because of site rules. I will probably get banned for this comment. Ever since our real owner died the team has gone straight down the hole. Our payroll in 10' was over 110mil, right now its lower than 50mil lol. If we kept our players our lineup could have Cuddyer, Hunter, Hardy, Revere, Gomez and others. Our rotation could have Garza, Liriano, Santana(Who knows what would of happened if he stayed) and others. I mean we would be an annual playoff team like usual.

Major Leauge Ready
10-06-2013, 08:43 AM
We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.

The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.
Pujlos
Hamilton
Bourne
Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)
Jackson
Dempster
Several other 2nd tier SPs

The failure rate among FAs is very high. You can easily afford that risk/failure when you are one of the teams where an extra $20M is 15-20% of the incremental salary budget you have relative to the Twins.

We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.

drivlikejehu
10-06-2013, 09:41 AM
The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.
Pujlos
Hamilton
Bourne
Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)
Jackson
Dempster
Several other 2nd tier SPs

Well you need not mention Pujols and Hamilton types because I've said its understandable the Twins wouldn't go after the most costly free agents.

What's funny about your list of "failures" is that they all would have been one of the best players on the Twins this year. Swisher & Bourn would each have been 3rd in position player WAR. Dempster would have been one of their best starters, and even Jackson would have been well above the team average in performance.

So thank you for making my point so nicely.



We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.



Note that even high payroll teams are 'top heavy,' in that a handful of players get a huge chunk of the payroll. For instance, the Tigers top 4 salaries constitute around half their total budget.

Regardless, the Twins did not spend their "budget" in 2013, nor will they in 2014, nor will they in 2015, nor will they in the forseeable future (adjusted for inflation of course). Eventually they will just say that the reduced payroll is all they can afford and the Twins will be one of the lowest payrolls in MLB on a regular basis.

I wonder what the excuse is going to be after several more years of cost cutting.

USAFChief
10-06-2013, 09:55 AM
The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.
Pujlos
Hamilton
Bourne
Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)
Jackson
Dempster
Several other 2nd tier SPs

The failure rate among FAs is very high. You can easily afford that risk/failure when you are one of the teams where an extra $20M is 15-20% of the incremental salary budget you have relative to the Twins.

We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.



Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?

also, to pick a nit, Mauer/Morneau did not cost the Twins $47m per year. I think you meant $37m.

nicksaviking
10-06-2013, 10:40 AM
Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?


I'm guessing even if he's right it's still misleading. The Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox surely will skew any kind of average. The 6-10 teams or 6-13 (I believe the Twins are 14) likely aren't anywhere near $80 million more than the Twins.

Regardless, no one is asking for the elite free agents, it would just be nice to go after 2nd tier guys once in awhile. I think Scott Kazmir was who prompted this portion of the discussion, is he even 2nd tier? Pretty borderline if he is.

USAFChief
10-06-2013, 11:13 AM
I'm guessing even if he's right it's still misleading. The Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox surely will skew any kind of average. The 6-10 teams or 6-13 (I believe the Twins are 14) likely aren't anywhere near $80 million more than the Twins.

Regardless, no one is asking for the elite free agents, it would just be nice to go after 2nd tier guys once in awhile. I think Scott Kazmir was who prompted this portion of the discussion, is he even 2nd tier? Pretty borderline if he is.
I don't think he's right, but I'm willing to look at his source(s).

Actually, I'm in the minority but I do think the Twins can, and sometimes should, pursue elite free agents. I thought they should have pursued Grienke last winter, for example.

Oxtung
10-06-2013, 11:15 AM
When you're looking at next season revenue is irrelevant. What matters is how much they have available to spend. Sure there are teams that have more revenue but they also have large commitments already to 2014 for the most part.

Look at the Phillies. Their payroll this season was ~$140MM. That is certainly more than the Twins could field indicating they have significantly higher revenue. However, they also have between $130MM and $160MM committed to 2014 already.

On the other hand the Twins have ~$60MM committed. They could spend somewhere between $90-$110MM next season, depending on what revenue figures you want to use.

So, while the Phillies have a higher revenue, the Twins actually will have more money available to spend this offseason. When it's all said and done the Twins have somewhere between $50MM and $75MM to spend this offseason. How many teams could match that buying power? I don't know but I would guess it's only a handful.

Rosterman
10-06-2013, 12:20 PM
54% of gross revenue. Does that mean that the Pohlads will be investing $12.5 million from the recent MLB deal into the front office etc. instead of the full amount into player salaries. Is it absed on this year's revenue or next year's prediction?

I still argue that when the Twins had a $125 million organization and spent $60 million on payroll. Now then have $200 million and can spend $100 million, yet what is that additional $40 million spent on that they didn't spend it on before (increased ushers, more groundscrew, more office products, minor league updates.......etc.)

I always cringe when I hear that percentage thrown out. That means that if the Twins make $10 million in profit, $5 million goes back into the organization for what and $5 million is available for player upgrades.

Someone explain, please. But not Sid!

LaBombo
10-06-2013, 03:31 PM
The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins.

Other than the Yankees and Red Sox, zero teams earned $80 million more in revenue than the Twins. And only four of them out-earned the Twins by more than $25 million.

That means that unless they're investing in the on-field product way out of proportion to the Twins, only a handful of teams can afford to put an extra $12 million per year free agent on the field.

It's also worth noting that those are 2012 revenue figures. That's a year when another terrible team drove attendance down about 6,000 per game or so, while league average attendance rose by about 2,000 per game.

So it stands to reason that if the Twins bring fans back by putting a competitive team on the field and see an additional $20 million in revenue, they have no excuse to not spend with all but the top five or six biggest of the big boys in MLB.

Major Leauge Ready
10-06-2013, 07:46 PM
MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search):

This link shows a delta of $682M for the top 10 teams. I had pasted the numbers from another source into a spreadsheet quite awhile ago and I can’t find that link now. That showed the difference was just shy of $800M.

I see some of you honed in on an irrelevant portion of the post, that being the average/team. I guess that’s my fault because the average/team really had little to do with the point. The salient point is that those 10 other teams have an aggregate $682M to spend. All teams with revenue in excess of the Twins is $725M. The aggregate difference was meant to be the point here because that’s what the Twins have to battle in free agency and perhaps more importantly they have to overcome that difference in terms of production/dollar of salary.

Oxtung
10-06-2013, 08:33 PM
MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search):

This link shows a delta of $682M for the top 10 teams. I had pasted the numbers from another source into a spreadsheet quite awhile ago and I can’t find that link now. That showed the difference was just shy of $800M.

I see some of you honed in on an irrelevant portion of the post, that being the average/team. I guess that’s my fault because the average/team really had little to do with the point. The salient point is that those 10 other teams have an aggregate $682M to spend. All teams with revenue in excess of the Twins is $725M. The aggregate difference was meant to be the point here because that’s what the Twins have to battle in free agency and perhaps more importantly they have to overcome that difference in terms of production/dollar of salary.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your link shows the Twins had a revenue of $214MM.

The Yankees and Red Sox obviously had significantly greater revenue but they also have significantly greater payroll commitments for next season as well. On top of that the Yankees are trying to get under the luxury tax.

After that the Phillies, Giants and Cubs had $48MM-$65MM more in revenue than the Twins. Again, both the Giants and Phillies have some significant payroll obligations in 2014. The Cubs do have significant payroll flexibility.

Other than those 5 teams everybody else is within a stones throw of the Twins when it comes to revenue.

IMO the Twins should be able to spend as much as anyone outside of 2 or 3 teams this off season. The idea that the Twins can't sign good players because we're at some serious $$$ disadvantage is unfounded.

Major Leauge Ready
10-06-2013, 10:15 PM
Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

Put another way, however many $13M players the Twins can afford to employ, those top 10 teams can employ that many plus 52 more collectively.

USAFChief
10-06-2013, 10:30 PM
Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

in post #38 you claimed the top 10 teams had $800m more in revenue annually than the Twins.

in post 46 you showed the Forbes estimates of team value.

Now you're using team values to again make claims about revenue.

The terms value and revenue are not interchangeable.

And I still don't think your claims about annual revenue deltas are correct.

Kwak
10-06-2013, 11:02 PM
"Collectively these teams have...". The teams are sharing revenue--Team "A" doesn't get to use team "F" 's revenue. "Collectively"--if five teams account for $600MM (hypothetically) the other teams account for the "other $82MM"--not enough to really enough to warrant inclusion in your point. It's really the top 5 teams that make the difference. The other teams are simply a red herring.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 02:51 AM
Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

Put another way, however many $13M players the Twins can afford to employ, those top 10 teams can employ that many plus 52 more collectively.

What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

The Wise One
10-07-2013, 05:53 AM
Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?

.

A site IIRC you have quoted from
MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Full List - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/)

If using fingers, thumbs and toes were correct, it comes out to about 65 million per team. Not 80/yr, but still a significant number when posted as $65000000. That is still half of what the Twins payroll could be in difference. That is Greinke, Lee, and Sabathia's contract. The average difference for 5-10 comes closer to 25 million by eyeball. That is just a Greinke contract difference.

howieramone
10-07-2013, 06:54 AM
What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.Can you confirm your theory that the Twins have the 3rd or 4th most money to spend in Free Agency in all of baseball?

Mr. Brooks
10-07-2013, 07:09 AM
54% of gross revenue. Does that mean that the Pohlads will be investing $12.5 million from the recent MLB deal into the front office etc. instead of the full amount into player salaries. Is it absed on this year's revenue or next year's prediction?

I still argue that when the Twins had a $125 million organization and spent $60 million on payroll. Now then have $200 million and can spend $100 million, yet what is that additional $40 million spent on that they didn't spend it on before (increased ushers, more groundscrew, more office products, minor league updates.......etc.)

I always cringe when I hear that percentage thrown out. That means that if the Twins make $10 million in profit, $5 million goes back into the organization for what and $5 million is available for player upgrades.

Someone explain, please. But not Sid!

Umm, it's a business. The goal is to make a profit. It's not a non profit organization. That is where the rest of the money goes, and rightly so.

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 07:56 AM
in post #38 you claimed the top 10 teams had $800m more in revenue annually than the Twins.

in post 46 you showed the Forbes estimates of team value.

Now you're using team values to again make claims about revenue.

The terms value and revenue are not interchangeable.

And I still don't think your claims about annual revenue deltas are correct.

With all due respect, I think some of you are simply not willing to consider anything that challenges your assumption that the solution is spending more. You did not even look. The revenue is clearly listed but you were not looking for a comeback to support your position without actually considering the information.

I put the numbers in a spreadsheet and pasted below.



The aggregate incremental revenue of the teams above the Twins in revenue is $822M.
The aggregate incremental revenue of the top 10 teams is $718M.
If the 5 teams at the bottom of the list don’t convince you that spending is not the key to success, I don’t know what will. There is only a handful of medium size FA contacts among them. And, those contracts were put in place when they were ready to contend.
The Twins spending before they started rebuilding is consistent with the teams nearest them in revenue.


TEAM ------- Rev --- Pay --- Diff --- TOT
Yankees ---- 471 --- 230 --- 257
Dodgers ---- 336 --- 217 --- 122 --- 379
Phillies------- 279 --- 165 --- 714 --- 444
Red Sox----- 274 --- 150 --- 60 --- 504
Cubs--------- 274 --- 104 --- 60 --- 564
Tigers-------- 262 --- 148 --- 48 --- 612
Giants------- 245 --- 140 --- 31 --- 643
Angels ------ 239 --- 128 --- 25 --- 668
CWS -------- 239 --- 119 --- 25 --- 693
Blue Jays---- 239 --- 117 --- 25 --- 718
Cardinals---- 239 --- 115 --- 25 ---743
Rangers----- 239 --- 114 --- 25 ---768
Nationals---- 238 --- 116 --- 24 ---792
Mets--------- 232 ----- 73 --- 18 ---810
Braves------- 225 ----- 89 --- 11 ---821
Mariners----- 215 ----- 72 --- 1 ---822
Twins-------- 214 ----- 75 --- 0
Orioles------- 206 ----- 90
Reds--------- 202 ----- 107
Brewers----- 201 ----- 83
Rockies ----- 199 ----- 72
Astros ------ 196 ----- 22
Arizona------ 195 ------ 89
Marlins------- 195 ------ 36
Padres------- 189 ------ 67
Indians----- 186 ------ 77
Pirates ----- 178 ----- 79
Athletics---- 173 ----- 60
Royals ------ 169 ----- 81
Rays -------- 167 ----- 58

USAFChief
10-07-2013, 07:58 AM
A site IIRC you have quoted from
MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Full List - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/)

If using fingers, thumbs and toes were correct, it comes out to about 65 million per team. Not 80/yr, but still a significant number when posted as $65000000. That is still half of what the Twins payroll could be in difference. That is Greinke, Lee, and Sabathia's contract. The average difference for 5-10 comes closer to 25 million by eyeball. That is just a Greinke contract difference.

Do these teams spend 100 percent of their revenue on player payroll, or "52 percent" like the Twins? Or some other percentage? Unless its 100 percent, the figures above don't represent reality, right?

Not to mention, as Oxtung has pointed out, the Twins aren't using anywhere near their self imposed revenue-salary "cap."

cmathewson
10-07-2013, 08:18 AM
"[Spending] is going to be up to Terry”

That is all I needed to read. On a scale of 1 to 100, my confidence in Ryan spending for other than his typical blue light specials this offseason is about 2. It could happen. But I would be shocked. He just hates getting into bidding wars for guys. He hates spending more than he thinks they're worth right now. In other words, he hates doing his job. Unless and until he starts doing his job, he will end his career a failure.

The game has changed. You just can't win consistently if you refuse to use one of the primary talent acquisition methods. But Ryan can't or won't adapt to the evolving game. He'll sign Pelfrey. He'll get another bargain. But if he upgrades the front of the rotation, I would be shocked and elated. Without upgrading the front of the rotation, we are in for another 90-loss season.

cmathewson
10-07-2013, 08:21 AM
"[Spending] is going to be up to Terry”

That is all I needed to read. On a scale of 1 to 100, my confidence in Ryan spending for other than his typical blue light specials this offseason is about 2. It could happen. But I would be shocked. He just hates getting into bidding wars for guys. He hates spending more than he thinks they're worth right now. In other words, he hates doing his job. Unless and until he starts doing his job, he will end his career a failure.

The game has changed. You just can't win consistently if you refuse to use one of the primary talent acquisition methods. But Ryan can't or won't adapt to the evolving game. He'll sign Pelfrey. He'll get another bargain. But if he upgrades the front of the rotation, I would be shocked and elated. Without upgrading the front of the rotation, we are in for another 90-loss season.

Willihammer
10-07-2013, 08:46 AM
"The game has changed since I've entered," Ryan said. "It's for bright, energetic negotiators, moreso than anything I possess."

-Terry Ryan, Sept 2007

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 08:58 AM
What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

The incremental revenue has Everything to do with. I am making a point of market economics. You are calculating how much payroll room a specific team has at a specific point in time which has very little to do with how the total available dollars impact market economics .

The point here is relative ability to spend on payroll and/or free agents. Total revenue is not germane to that discussion. The relative ability to spend is determined by the incremental revenue. If Team A has $50M more in revenue than Team B, they can spend and additional $2M per player on their 25 man roster. If two teams each generate $50M more than the Twins, collectively they have $100M in revenue more than the Twins to spend on their payroll.

More importantly, when competing in the FA market those aggregate dollars represent the collective advantage of those teams in payroll/free agent spending. That’s the macro view.

If you prefer a micro view … The cardinals have roughly an incremental $50M, they can retain or sign in free agency four players at $12M/yr where the Twins roster will have to be filled by a league minimum player.

On a side note, the reported net incomes make no sense to me but without the detail that’s no surprise. I would not expect operating costs to vary dramatically but the reported NOIs suggest a substantial difference. Should the FO, scouts, travel, etc be substantially different from the Cardinals to the Twins? What is the variable expense? Yet, if you look at the revenue and salary information I posted earlier, this roughly 50% theme seems to hold true. Given it appears to exists in several teams, I am inclined to believe there is a reason

howieramone
10-07-2013, 09:01 AM
That is all I needed to read. On a scale of 1 to 100, my confidence in Ryan spending for other than his typical blue light specials this offseason is about 2. It could happen. But I would be shocked. He just hates getting into bidding wars for guys. He hates spending more than he thinks they're worth right now. In other words, he hates doing his job. Unless and until he starts doing his job, he will end his career a failure.

The game has changed. You just can't win consistently if you refuse to use one of the primary talent acquisition methods. But Ryan can't or won't adapt to the evolving game. He'll sign Pelfrey. He'll get another bargain. But if he upgrades the front of the rotation, I would be shocked and elated. Without upgrading the front of the rotation, we are in for another 90-loss season.You don't need to sign marquee free agents to win consistently, nor are they one of the primary talent acquisition methods/sources. It's the market of last resort to all GM's. Also, the free agent market is not made up of marquee free agents and dumpster diving. There is plenty of room in between which he consistently works. On a scale of 1 to 100, I would give a 2 on his chances to end his career a failure. He's been back 23 months.

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 10:00 AM
Do these teams spend 100 percent of their revenue on player payroll, or "52 percent" like the Twins? Or some other percentage? Unless its 100 percent, the figures above don't represent reality, right?

Not to mention, as Oxtung has pointed out, the Twins aren't using anywhere near their self imposed revenue-salary "cap."

Depends on how much variable expense is associated with the incremental revenue. I have not seen the financials but I suspect only a small portion is variable. For example, is there any varaible cost associated with the additional $25M in TV renenue the teams will be getting next year.

How much of their alloted 52-54% the Twins spend has little to do with the Macro view of available dollars to acquisition the available FA talent. That is a micro prospective. It is a measure of their available budget right room now. It is a not a relative measure of their ability to spend vs other teams on an on-going basis. More importantly, our desired strategy should be the one that produces the same level of productivity for roughly $4M average for players on the 25 man roster as the $9M/man the Dodgers and Yankees can spend. If we were the Rays or the As we would need to figure out how to do that for roughly $3M/man on the 25 man roster.

These ratios are not going to change much. So, I would suggest we should be really focused on drafting and development. When we get really good at drafting and development, we should sell high to continue to replenish the farm system. That won't be popular but there are a couple models that suggest it is effective. We should also follow the Rays model of locking up key individuals very early. This is a bit risky too but a much better risk than signing guys past their prime for big $$$. They might even fail at the same right but the mistakes won't cost nearly as much.

drivlikejehu
10-07-2013, 10:07 AM
These ratios are not going to change much. So, I would suggest we should be really focused on drafting and development. When we get really good at drafting and development, we should sell high to continue to replenish the farm system. That won't be popular but there are a couple models that suggest it is effective. We should also follow the Rays model of locking up key individuals very early. This is a bit risky too but a much better risk than signing guys past their prime for big $$$. They might even fail at the same right but the mistakes won't cost nearly as much.

Developing players is important for every team. Pohlad is the one who said he was willing to spend to put a better team on the field.

Are you saying-

a) you don't believe him or

b) you do believe him but disagree he should be willing to spend

Willihammer
10-07-2013, 10:35 AM
On a side note, the reported net incomes make no sense to me but without the detail that’s no surprise. I would not expect operating costs to vary dramatically but the reported NOIs suggest a substantial difference. Should the FO, scouts, travel, etc be substantially different from the Cardinals to the Twins? What is the variable expense? Yet, if you look at the revenue and salary information I posted earlier, this roughly 50% theme seems to hold true. Given it appears to exists in several teams, I am inclined to believe there is a reason

The Cardinals operate on a 79m budget. The Pirates on a 72m budget. The Twins? 131m budget. You think they're just a more expensive team to run than these other clubs? I don't know why you would assume that.

BabyJesusBuxton
10-07-2013, 10:51 AM
I have been on this site for almost a year now(I had other names) and I feel like you are the only other person that truly gets what the Twins are all about. I know a lot of people on here know baseball but I feel like a bunch of them defend the Twins just because they don't know what else to do. They would rather do that than except that we are hopeless. What you just said is exactly what im thinking. And I also feel like I cant give a true explanation because of site rules. I will probably get banned for this comment. Ever since our real owner died the team has gone straight down the hole. Our payroll in 10' was over 110mil, right now its lower than 50mil lol. If we kept our players our lineup could have Cuddyer, Hunter, Hardy, Revere, Gomez and others. Our rotation could have Garza, Liriano, Santana(Who knows what would of happened if he stayed) and others. I mean we would be an annual playoff team like usual.You do realize that 3 different players you list as "our players" that we could have were the results of consecutive trades starting with Santana? It isn't feasible to think we could have Santana and Gomez or Gomez and Hardy or Santana and Hardy for that matter. Not to mention the Twins didn't have the payroll to keep Hunter and Santana when they left. IMO keeping one of them may have been possible but there wouldn't have been any way to keep both AND have a shot at keeping Mauer.

BabyJesusBuxton
10-07-2013, 10:58 AM
Does anyone really trust Kazmir's production this year? I haven't looked into his actual numbers the past few years to see what changed this year. Is it just a health thing with him? Obviously he couldn't be worse than what the Twins rotation has included the past two years so I'm all for going after him. I just wonder if he isn't a middle of the road pitcher as apposed to an upper tier free agent some people seem to think he is based on one year of production.

Alex
10-07-2013, 11:00 AM
You don't need to sign marquee free agents to win consistently, nor are they one of the primary talent acquisition methods/sources. It's the market of last resort to all GM's. Also, the free agent market is not made up of marquee free agents and dumpster diving. There is plenty of room in between which he consistently works. On a scale of 1 to 100, I would give a 2 on his chances to end his career a failure. He's been back 23 months.

No, you certainly don't, but you have to do something better than the other teams and the Twins don't have many options for the immediate future outside of FA. As far as they next year or two is concerned, they are at a "last resort" type measure.

As for part two, he is very likely to succeed at some point with the farm system, but he'll have done so with a large portion of core players that weren't acquired while he was GM.

Then, of course, he's presided over two 96+ seasons and likely a third unless he actually improves the major league club. As I mentioned in another thread, some people find this acceptable and natural, but I disagree and see a GM who did very little to help the big league club at best and at worst, tried and failed miserably.

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 11:08 AM
The Cardinals operate on a 79m budget. The Pirates on a 72m budget. The Twins? 131m budget. You think they're just a more expensive team to run than these other clubs? I don't know why you would assume that.

I am not sure how you are calculating these numbers. There is a 98M dollar difference in revenue to payroll with the Pirates and $123M with the Cardinals. The Yankees show a $241M differential and it does not show up as NOI. Regardless, I was asking the same question as you. Why does it cost substantially more to run one club over another? However, when you look at the reported NOI, it would appear it does. Why? We don't have nearly enough information to conclude anything.

howieramone
10-07-2013, 11:49 AM
No, you certainly don't, but you have to do something better than the other teams and the Twins don't have many options for the immediate future outside of FA. As far as they next year or two is concerned, they are at a "last resort" type measure.

As for part two, he is very likely to succeed at some point with the farm system, but he'll have done so with a large portion of core players that weren't acquired while he was GM.

Then, of course, he's presided over two 96+ seasons and likely a third unless he actually improves the major league club. As I mentioned in another thread, some people find this acceptable and natural, but I disagree and see a GM who did very little to help the big league club at best and at worst, tried and failed miserably.Who cares where the players come from? Ryan is trying to rebuild a baseball team, not take credit. It's far from a given that the Twins will lose 96+ games next season and he's constantly at work improving the team as are all GM's. It's like Theo recently said, you don't have 4 drafts a year and signing free agents is not just putting an "X" in the box. Maybe it would be best to wait until ST to make predictions on whether the team is improved. No one said it was acceptable, but it certainly is natural for a mid-market team, 23 months into a rebuild to be losing. The Twins are not the first team in to be in a rebuilding mode.

Willihammer
10-07-2013, 12:24 PM
I am not sure how you are calculating these numbers. There is a 98M dollar difference in revenue to payroll with the Pirates and $123M with the Cardinals. The Yankees show a $241M differential and it does not show up as NOI. Regardless, I was asking the same question as you. Why does it cost substantially more to run one club over another? However, when you look at the reported NOI, it would appear it does. Why? We don't have nearly enough information to conclude anything.

Actually I did make a mistake with the Cardinals, their operating costs are about 100m even. Still, the Twins had the 5th highest operating costs this year. If they are going to make cuts, why not cut from operations instead of payroll?

I am taking Revenue - Payroll - NOI to arrive at operating costs.

Here is a representation of leaguewise operating costs as a function of revenue

http://i.imgur.com/SVeRPS8.png

Now, here is a graph of Wins as a function of the difference between actual operating costs and expected operating costs (as expressed by the equation y=1.3238x + 90.175).

http://i.imgur.com/RoomSWV.png

The Teams on the negative (righthand) side ran efficient operations, and quite a few of them wound up in the playoffs this year.

Seems to me one could make an argument that the Twins ought to cut money from operations, instead of payroll. Compared to the average 214m revenue-team, they are wasting over 20m on inefficient operations.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 12:49 PM
Can you confirm your theory that the Twins have the 3rd or 4th most money to spend in Free Agency in all of baseball?

No, I'm not willing to put that much time and effort into it.

I do know the Cubs are going to have a ton of money available this off season. The Yankees, if they truly want to get under the luxury cap, will have quite a bit of money (~$70MM) but they also have to replace/re-sign 6 starting position players, 3 starting pitchers and Mariano Rivera. Assuming they approach the luxury cap, the Red Sox will have ~$50MM to spend but they also have to replace 4-5 starting position players. The White Sox could have a lot to spend but like the Twins it is doubtful they will invest heavily during their rebuild. Who knows about the Dodgers? The Giants could spend $40-50MM but they have to replace 3 starting pitchers in Lincecum, Zito and Vogelsong and they have to replace Hunter Pence in RF. With that many pieces to find and coming off a 76-86 season are they going to dive in to FA heavy?

Now all of those above numbers have a few caveats. I only included guaranteed dollars and 2/3 of their arbitration eligible dollars, assuming some will get non-tendered, as their "committed payroll". I also only listed starting pitchers and position players above so each of those teams probably have to also replace some bullpen pieces and backups. Then they also have to fill out the remainder of their roster with pre-arbitration players from within their organization.

So, for instance the Giants might have $50MM but they ultimately have to fill the 4 starting spots listed above, a relief pitcher, a swing man, a backup OF and 6-10 spots with pre-arbitration players (depending on how they fill the previously listed positions). I only listed the starting pitchers and position players above because presumably that is where they will spend most of their money in FA. Just remember that a chunk of their available money has to go to fill out their roster after their big signings. So in the end the Giants probably only have $30-40MM to spend on their 4 starters.

DJL44
10-07-2013, 12:56 PM
"The Twins had the 5th highest operating costs this year."

How much of that is paying for Target Field? They can't cut back on debt service.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 01:13 PM
The incremental revenue has Everything to do with. I am making a point of market economics. You are calculating how much payroll room a specific team has at a specific point in time which has very little to do with how the total available dollars impact market economics .

The point here is relative ability to spend on payroll and/or free agents. Total revenue is not germane to that discussion. The relative ability to spend is determined by the incremental revenue. If Team A has $50M more in revenue than Team B, they can spend and additional $2M per player on their 25 man roster. If two teams each generate $50M more than the Twins, collectively they have $100M in revenue more than the Twins to spend on their payroll.

More importantly, when competing in the FA market those aggregate dollars represent the collective advantage of those teams in payroll/free agent spending. That’s the macro view.

If you prefer a micro view … The cardinals have roughly an incremental $50M, they can retain or sign in free agency four players at $12M/yr where the Twins roster will have to be filled by a league minimum player.

On a side note, the reported net incomes make no sense to me but without the detail that’s no surprise. I would not expect operating costs to vary dramatically but the reported NOIs suggest a substantial difference. Should the FO, scouts, travel, etc be substantially different from the Cardinals to the Twins? What is the variable expense? Yet, if you look at the revenue and salary information I posted earlier, this roughly 50% theme seems to hold true. Given it appears to exists in several teams, I am inclined to believe there is a reason

You seem to be making a rather general point that has no foundation in the real world and that nobody is arguing against. Of course the Twins can't have salaries that average close to the Yankees. Of course the Twins can't go out and sign big contracts in perpetuity. Of course the market price of the top salaries is going to be driven by what the big spenders are willing to pay.

But none of that has any bearing on whether or not the Twins can, should or will sign a big free agent this off season. In reality the Twins have a lot of money available this off season. That money is not "ear-marked" for anything until perhaps 2018-2020 when significant arbitration increases or long term contracts are going to be signed. That also happens to be the time at which Mauer's $23MM comes off the books. So, there is a bunch of money available for the forseeable future. What should the Twins do with it? That is the question, IMO.

Alex
10-07-2013, 01:14 PM
Who cares where the players come from? Ryan is trying to rebuild a baseball team, not take credit. It's far from a given that the Twins will lose 96+ games next season and he's constantly at work improving the team as are all GM's. It's like Theo recently said, you don't have 4 drafts a year and signing free agents is not just putting an "X" in the box. Maybe it would be best to wait until ST to make predictions on whether the team is improved. No one said it was acceptable, but it certainly is natural for a mid-market team, 23 months into a rebuild to be losing. The Twins are not the first team in to be in a rebuilding mode.

Some people continually give him more credit than I believe he's due, and that's the part of your post I was responding to. Not to mention that looking at what he's done is important in actually evaluating him. For my part, I would have liked to see a better team at Target field than the one we've seen the last two seasons, but instead we've had little action taken by Ryan on that end, and he's also made very little difference in adding to the farm system while that has happened.

We've disagreed about whether it is actually natural in other threads, especially for a team to be this bad and I've highlighted several teams that avoided that did that are in the Twins position or worse in terms of markets. I'm not arguing that they aren't rebuilding rebuilding, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that and whether "rebuilding" means you have to lose 291 games in three seasons. You certainly don't have to win divisions doing it, but at a certain point they're just doing a poor job.

As for next season, I'll be happy to re-evaluate when Spring Training roles around, but outside of free agency, I'm incredibly interested to see what path they'll take that will help them be a better team next season. I don't see how they'll make a significant trade without sacrificing that precious depth in the minors and they have nothing of real value on the major league team. I'm sure we'll see a couple of our prospects move up, but to think they are going to come in and start turning the team around instantly as they try to figure out the big leagues is a bit much.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 01:17 PM
"The Twins had the 5th highest operating costs this year."

How much of that is paying for Target Field? They can't cut back on debt service.

Their debt was 17% of their value ($578MM) which, at a glance, appears to on the lower end of the spectrum. A couple teams are >50%

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 01:25 PM
As I said earlier, this raises some interesting questions. However, we don't have even remotely close to enough information to draw any conclusions. For starters, we are looking at a single year and there are many transactions and/or anomalies that could acccount for the difference. At first I though maybe theyhad an unusual way of accounting for revenue sharing but that does not make sense looking at the numbers and how do you account for the enormous difference in operating cost between the Yankees and the Dodgers?

Bottom line is that you can't jump to conclusions about operating costs with the very limited detail we have at our disposal.

Willihammer
10-07-2013, 01:26 PM
Even if their stadium debt is outrageous, the contract the Twins made with Minnesota was "help us finance a new park and we'll put a better product on the field," not "help us finance a new park and we'll put a better product on the field after we've paid off our portion of the debt needed in order to build said park."

Kwak
10-07-2013, 02:20 PM
"The Twins had the 5th highest operating costs this year."

How much of that is paying for Target Field? They can't cut back on debt service.

Debt service is low. They are (have been) using a policy of accellerated short-term debt sevice repayment. They have provided no explanation why, because short-term debt is at a much lower interest rate than the bonds underwritten (6% coupon if memory serves me right).

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 02:26 PM
Even if their stadium debt is outrageous, the contract the Twins made with Minnesota was "help us finance a new park and we'll put a better product on the field," not "help us finance a new park and we'll put a better product on the field after we've paid off our portion of the debt needed in order to build said park."

So if we could swap teams with the Angels or the Rays, which would you take. How about the Yankees or the A's?