Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs

From MinnCentric


Photo

Morosi: Boras in mid-season form

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,004 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:54 AM

also there are many who could help you out with the links to this info like john , seth ,goblin or brock...
there pretty sharp guys , me i just read this or that , click on a link then click on another then another and not positive where sb nation twinkie town rumors whisphers fever hard ball espn1500 theres a couple houndred out there


What???????????????


Don't feed the trolls.

#22 Steve J

Steve J

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

Of course, as usual Scott Boras says something self service and a bit ridiculous. Question, this $25 million teams are seeing next year, how is this free money? doesn't this in part replace other TV deals at least some of the teams are seeing revenue from now?

#23 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,340 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:01 AM

It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.

#24 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:07 PM

It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.


I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.

#25 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,340 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:22 AM

I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.


$12 million in additional accounting fees?

:)

#26 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:41 AM

It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.


I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.


I wonder about that as well -- although I'd leave out the "only" part. I don't want to get into an argument about revenues and the Twins operating costs at Target Field (it does seem to me that they may be somewhat higher than at the Dome).

But my question is this: should the team always be locked into a relatively narrow margin on percentage spent on player salaries (e.g. 50% -52% as I think I've seen at times) or should the range be larger (e.g. 43%-60%)? It would seem to me that a rebuilding team would have lower salary costs than a "mature" team and that you'd want to allow for that -- so that when you have a truly competitive team and want/need to add some finishing touches, there wouldn't be financial constraints on doing so.

Maybe with the larger revenue stream at TF, the Twins would be willing to forego some profit and do that anyway if they ever get a competitive team again. But maybe they should plan for that eventuality but harboring some funds when the team is less competitive. I've thought about this argment for several years as we've discussed the costs of "buying an ace" (and people repeatedly saying that the Twins can't afford it). Is the Twins business model (as they've explained it in public) too rigid?

I know that no one wants to talk about lower payrolls but if, for example, the Twins bring up a number of minor league players over the next few years that save them money, should they be spending all the savings while the young core of players is still raw? Or should they be saving that money until those players are mature and the use of the $$$ might make a bigger impact? (oh, if they do that, they'd better make it clear that's what they are doing -- not just making a bigger profit for now).

Edited by JB_Iowa, 08 November 2012 - 08:44 AM.


#27 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,110 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:06 AM

Hmmmmm, why would Jim Pohlad want to keep $12.5m? Hmmm, I wonder why?

The Twins model is to peg payroll at a percentage of projected revenue, that's it, look no further. It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of won't.
This whole thing is pretty basic business fundamentals, it's not tied to profit, it's the other way around.

#28 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,004 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

I know that no one wants to talk about lower payrolls but if, for example, the Twins bring up a number of minor league players over the next few years that save them money, should they be spending all the savings while the young core of players is still raw? Or should they be saving that money until those players are mature and the use of the $$$ might make a bigger impact? (oh, if they do that, they'd better make it clear that's what they are doing -- not just making a bigger profit for now).


You're absolutely right about this. Of course, none of the cynics here would give the GM or the ownership the benefit of the doubt if they tried it, but that's neither here nor there.

Sometimes you've got to go all in to win. Counterintuitively, sometimes, you've got to spend to less with your good players if they're not ready for the final push to the summit.

#29 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,340 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.

#30 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,110 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:11 PM

I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.


Most sound businesses don't, certainly not when it comes to payroll.

#31 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.


I'm pretty sure he has said that as well. The point of my post was to question whether -- in baseball (or other sports) -- that is the wisest course of action.

I'm not talking about back-loading contracts or mortgaging the future to make more acquisitions now. I'm talking about taking the savings you should be able to generate when you are bringing in a young core of players and putting that money aside for the future -- either to retain them or to sign additional talent to go with them.

What is so magical -- OR so fiscally sound -- about spending up to your "allocated payroll ceiling" now. Or is it just that they want to distribute it all as profits?

Baseball is a business but ownership of baseball teams SHOULD have another goal besides making a profit -- that should be to win a championship. And maybe that requires being a little more creative with your financing than just saying we're going to allocate 52% of expected revenues to payroll.