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.