08-13-2012, 09:30 AM #21
I was looking at this.
And again while the Rangers certainly have a larger market, it's not like they have a market that's almost 3 times the size of the Twins' market. Given the deal FSNorth got, that's apparently how the Twins evaluated the situation.
Last edited by Harrison Greeley III; 08-13-2012 at 09:39 AM.AKA: TMW
08-13-2012, 09:34 AM #22
Do they? When NBC Sports and Comcast merged, was it out of the question for them to make a play for the Twins? It appeared that FSN had the monopoly, but that wasn't going to last for long. Kudos to FSN for getting the deal locked up before the Twins had the sense to realize they'd have another buyer, I suppose.AKA: TMW
08-13-2012, 09:41 AM #23
2. This is a joke, right? It's wrong of me to expect them to treat fans honestly?
3. a. How many more times do you need to see it? b. You think? Let's start with doubling the value of their asset, to the tune of a cool 1/4 billion dollars.
08-13-2012, 09:46 AM #24
Re: TV Revenues
Don't you also have to look at demographics? Without knowing this for sure, my guess would be that the average age in the Twins' market is higher (maybe significantly higher) than those in the Dallas market. And I would bet that if you look at average age of actual viewers, the age is higher on FSN than for the Rangers as well. And OLDER translates into less advertising revenue.
I would also venture a guess that the Dallas market is an expanding market in terms of size . I doubt that is true of the Twins market.
I think both of those factors -- plus market size, plus other available outlets -- played a part in the size of the Twins TV deal.
08-13-2012, 09:56 AM #25
In that list you provided, Dallas is just a few thousand households behind Boston, which has the most households once you factor out the multi-team markets of NY, LA, SF, and Chi. My statement still stands.
08-13-2012, 09:56 AM #26
I'll ask once again, who's saying the Twins are a bad team cause of their payroll?
08-13-2012, 10:07 AM #27
08-13-2012, 10:30 AM #28
08-13-2012, 10:37 AM #29
08-13-2012, 10:45 AM #30
08-13-2012, 10:56 AM #31
08-13-2012, 10:57 AM #32
We never seem to run out of excuses, trees, schedule, injuries, umpires you name it. In the end the payroll numbers mean little if the decision making of the front office doesn't change. Terry, Billy and all the scouts remain the same, the coaching staff remains and yet we expect a new and better result?
08-13-2012, 01:26 PM #33
The trick is this: instead of debating a point honestly, choose the most extreme possible viewpoint and portray that as the opposing side. That gives lots of room for fire, brimstone and proselytizing. In this case, the extreme point seems to be that payroll is not THE BIGGEST factor in winning and losing. And if it's not the biggest, it must not be important.
The absurdity of the initial argument becomes clear when one carries it through to its natural conclusion: if payroll isn't important, why not cut it further? Why not go back to 2000, when it was under $20M? That is absurd, of course. Which is why a writer sticks to hammering his philosophical point - "it's not that important" - instead of engaging in a discussion of the real-world example.
(BTW, I'm quite sure I've done the same thing. I'm not blasting Mackey for this. I'm just saying that it's easy to take it too far.)
In this case, the real-world examples are this:
1) The Twins payroll went down $13M or so in the same year that MLB payrolls went up a few percent.
To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse.
2) If the Twins cut payroll again this year it will further limit them.
I don't disagree that free agency shopping can encourage "laziness." But we have a team starved for starting pitching and a free agent market that is loaded for starting pitching. That could not be a better situation provided they don't shy away from spending some money. That doesn't fix all the problems, but it can fix that problem, and it's likely that there are going to be some huge bargains this year the same way Willingham looks like a huge bargain. Again, I can't see anyway one can reasonably argue that now having an extrt $10-15M to spend is unimportant.
I'll make one more point that gets me a little more riled up.
It is AWFULLY CONVENIENT for the Twins to start with the "payroll isn't that important" three years after they start to live in a publicly subsidized stadium. I don't remember them making that argument back when they were lobbying for a new stadium. At that point, the mantra was that they "have trouble competing" in their stadium. Seemingly, it was important then.
08-13-2012, 01:32 PM #34
08-13-2012, 01:52 PM #35
08-13-2012, 02:04 PM #36
Should the different cities be looked at as solely the metro markets, or the whole blackout viewing market? Living in Des Moines, I have to deal with being in the Twins' 'market', yet the area defaults to the Cardinals on Mediacom. I feel like it is a relative point, as every area will have its own surrounding viewing area, but at least it should be brought up. The Rangers' only viewing competition off the top of my head is the Astros, whereas the Twins have to fight with the Brewers, Royals, Cardinals, Cubs, and White Sox.
08-13-2012, 02:05 PM #37
Phil Mackey belittles his readers and listeners on a regular basis
Mackey will not take calls on his show and engage in respectful conversation with those who hold an opposing point of view.
Instead, he chooses to take his shots and move on. (Bomb Thrower)
Back on March 27th, Mackey tweeted, "I do question the intelligence of a lot of readers"
I checked out on his arrogance long ago.
Last edited by Highabove; 08-13-2012 at 02:13 PM.
08-13-2012, 02:22 PM #38
Actually the lazy thing is to blame management for gaffes that are obvious. The correlation between payroll and wins is sacrosand.
Teams don't release their financials, but we can estimate a ballteam's revenues based on previously leaked balance sheets. See deadspin series: http://deadspin.com/5615096
The attached spreadsheet uses bb-ref salary data which excludes bogus amortization player salary expense (a duplicate expense) that is expensed on the balance sheets. Teams accordingly spent an average of 36.46% of same-year revenues on player payroll. The range is large, but clearly in this sample the teams who spent more won more (see spreadsheet below).
Observing this, the Twins projected revenues for Target Field during 2010 and 2011 were 234m and 309m, respectively. Thus, their payroll would have been $117m in 2010 and $154m in 2011 if the purported 50% of estimated revenues spent on payroll, was accurate.
Last edited by Willihammer; 08-13-2012 at 05:24 PM.
08-13-2012, 04:07 PM #39
"To suggest that the Twins couldn't have used that $13M to improve their ball club this year is ridiculous. It doesn't mean they would have spent it wisely. It doesn't mean they would have competed. But it's silly to suggest that would have made the team worse."
08-13-2012, 05:34 PM #40
Darren Rovell CNBC
We all know that it's easier to make the playoffs in a sport without a salary cap if your team spends more money. More money allows you to acquire valuable free agents and make more mistakes in your talent evaluation and still recover.
But how much more of an advantage is a larger payroll in Major League Baseball?Getty Images
I looked at the final season payrolls from 2001-2010 and came up with these odds. Of the 78 teams who made the playoffs, 48 of them (61.5 percent) were among the top 10 highest spenders. Eighteen of them (23.1 percent) ranked in 11th to 20th in league payroll. And 12 playoff teams (15.4 percent) came out of the bottom third of payroll.
So by going from a team in the bottom third, to a team in the middle third, you increase your chances of being in the playoffs by 50 percent. By going from the middle third to the top third, you increase your chances of making the postseason by 166 percent.
This year, half the playoff teams (based on Opening Day payrolls) came from the top third of payrolls (Yankees and Tigers), while 1/4 of the playoff teams came from the middle (Cardinals and Brewers) and bottom of payrolls (Rays and Diamondbacks).
As for actually winning it all?
Out of the last 10 winners, 60 percent have come from the top third of payroll, while 40 percent came from the middle third. There haven't been any winners from the bottom third over the last decade.