Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Article: Twins Should Follow Blue Jays Bold Lead

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:52 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...-Jays-Bold-Lead
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#2 Chris in Osaka

Chris in Osaka

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

I agree. Morneau, Span, and Willingham should've been moved last trading deadline. I worry that Ryan will move Parmalee instead of Morneau or Willingham. Intercourse the money left of the former's contract. And Willingham is due to regree and/or get injured.

#3 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,230 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:34 PM

I agree with Jim, they should be willing to do this, but will not do this. I do not for a moment think they'll sign 3 legit free agents. I do not think they'll deal really good/great prospects for MLB players.

#4 h2oface

h2oface

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:01 PM

i think the most intriguing thing about this trade might be that new marlins manager, mike redmond, had been managing in toronto's system and might have been personally responsible for many of the prospects miami will receive, both as pieces of the trade and as a minor league manager. i think redmond managed marisnick this season in class A at dunedin of the florida state league. redmond may be sly like columbo, and the owner of the marlins may have just cleaned the canvas for more painting, and not be done...... but jeff loria has done some kinda shady/slanted (expos to mlb/then buying marlins with a loan for the difference from mlb in 2002) dealings in the past. oh, as an aside......... i think it should just be world series championship - not .....ships - , as the first marlin's championship loria was not a part of as owner.

#5 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:39 PM

that's true... technically Loria was only responsible for one post WS championship dismantling, although pretty much the exact same thing happened after first Fish championship under prior ownership.

#6 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 609 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:57 PM

I was confused that this was the wrong posting.
[h=2]Article: Twins Should Follow Marlins Bold Lead[/h]

#7 sorney

sorney

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

I agree. Morneau, Span, and Willingham should've been moved last trading deadline. I worry that Ryan will move Parmalee instead of Morneau or Willingham. Intercourse the money left of the former's contract. And Willingham is due to regree and/or get injured.



Ummm...I agree with everything you said except intercoursing the money.....

#8 LastOnePicked

LastOnePicked

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:20 PM

Couldn't agree more. TR has proven that he's only capable of thinking small. For all of the praise he got for signing Willingham and Doumit, we need to keep in mind that the few moves he made last offseason netted the team exactly three wins over their dismal 2011 campaign. The current Twins simply cannot see the big picture, and seem completely adverse to any free-agent risk -- other than their death-by-a-thousand-cuts dabbles in the mlb dumpsters. I doubt TR was even in on any of the trade conversations with Miami. The fans will have to demand change soon.

#9 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,332 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

Toronto was a last place team--but a much better team than the last place Twins. Doesn't Toronto consider all of Canada "local broadcast revenue"--thus not shared with the rest of MLB? If so, that amount could easily dwarf what the Twins collect. Sorry, I don't have a figure for Toronto's local broadcast revenue. I do think that blaming Ryan for the deal between Toronto and Miami is unfair. There may not have ever been any discussion between Minnesota and Miami, or when the terms were "add $35MM/year in payroll...", Ryan's answer was likely "Not permitted."

#10 ssmart

ssmart

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

[SIZE=2]Agree 100% with J.C.
Let's give Terry Ryan a little time here. Pitchers and Catchers don't report for 3 months yet.
Trades are always great fodder for the Hot Stove League. Connie Mack dismantled 2 World Champion teams, in the teens; Frank 'Home Run' Baker, Eddie Collins et al. Then again in the 30's with Jimmy Foxx, 'Lefty' Grove, Al Simmons and others.
I remember growing up ... Harvey Kuenn for Rocky Colovito ... man I was knocked back on my 10yr. old butt by that one!
Let's wait a bit to see what TR does.[/SIZE]

#11 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,784 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:10 AM

Toronto was a last place team--but a much better team than the last place Twins. Doesn't Toronto consider all of Canada "local broadcast revenue"--thus not shared with the rest of MLB? If so, that amount could easily dwarf what the Twins collect. Sorry, I don't have a figure for Toronto's local broadcast revenue. I do think that blaming Ryan for the deal between Toronto and Miami is unfair. There may not have ever been any discussion between Minnesota and Miami, or when the terms were "add $35MM/year in payroll...", Ryan's answer was likely "Not permitted."


The Jays television contract with Sportsnet (also owned by Rogers), essentially makes all of Canada the Jays region.As lucrative as that may sound, it's not, according to the Globe and Mail it netted them $36M last season. Part of the reason for that is that the Jays actually fight for market share with a number of teams outside of Toronto, Manitoba easily has as many Twins fans as Jays fans and the Red Sox are very popular in the Maritimes.

That and fans being forced to listen to Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler 162 times.

One other downside of the national agreement is that is makes every Blue Jays game a blackout throughout Canada on MLB.TV.

#12 robbie111

robbie111

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:39 AM

The Jays television contract with Sportsnet (also owned by Rogers), essentially makes all of Canada the Jays region.As lucrative as that may sound, it's not, according to the Globe and Mail it netted them $36M last season.


If another company owned the Blue Jays that figure would be substantially higher. The Jays are owned by a cable company which owns sports networks in Canada. The 36M is a figure they made up to pay themselves and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

This is from Forbes magazine.

But Toronto is owned by $14 billion-in-sales Rogers Communications, which also owns sports channels that pump through Blue Jays games as well as those of its other two teams, the NBA’s Raptors and NHL’s Maple Leafs. The company’s strategy of using sports programming to boost profits has been paying off and shares of Rogers have been outperforming the market recently. On top of the increase in carrier fees Rogers can command from its sports programming, last year Rogers Sportsnet paid the Blue Jays a rights fee of $36 million. So Rogers gets a doubleheader from its sports programming. The Blue Jays have a much larger cable television audience than the Marlins and thus star power on the diamond can translate into much more money from advertisers.

It does dwarf the twins revenue, the 36 million is a fee they basically pay to themselves and really doesn't represent anything. Rogers Tv network paid Rogers sports team. They could have made the figure higher for example 180 million if they were selling the team to show how much revenue it brings in. So where they make their money is in advertising, cable company carrier fees (from competing cable companies for example Shaw in canada) and shares in the Rogers company. It's a different model.

Edited by robbie111, 15 November 2012 - 02:06 AM.


#13 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,332 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:31 AM

The Jays television contract with Sportsnet (also owned by Rogers), essentially makes all of Canada the Jays region.As lucrative as that may sound, it's not, according to the Globe and Mail it netted them $36M last season.


If another company owned the Blue Jays that figure would be substantially higher. The Jays are owned by a cable company which owns sports networks in Canada. The 36M is a figure they made up to pay themselves and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

This is from Forbes magazine.

But Toronto is owned by $14 billion-in-sales Rogers Communications, which also owns sports channels that pump through Blue Jays games as well as those of its other two teams, the NBA’s Raptors and NHL’s Maple Leafs. The company’s strategy of using sports programming to boost profits has been paying off and shares of Rogers have been outperforming the market recently. On top of the increase in carrier fees Rogers can command from its sports programming, last year Rogers Sportsnet paid the Blue Jays a rights fee of $36 million. So Rogers gets a doubleheader from its sports programming. The Blue Jays have a much larger cable television audience than the Marlins and thus star power on the diamond can translate into much more money from advertisers.

It does dwarf the twins revenue, the 36 million is a fee they basically pay to themselves and really doesn't represent anything. Rogers Tv network paid Rogers sports team. They could have made the figure higher for example 180 million if they were selling the team to show how much revenue it brings in. So where they make their money is in advertising, cable company carrier fees (from competing cable companies for example Shaw in canada) and shares in the Rogers company. It's a different model.


Then is it fair to conclude that the Jays "swim in money" and can easily afford to take on the added payroll from the Miami trade?

#14 robbie111

robbie111

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:48 AM

If your parent company is making $14 billion in advertising sales I'd say so. Plus the added payroll could easily be negated with increased advertising costs due to an increase in market share expected from the new look Jays. As I mentioned in another thread if they were to add Justin Morneau (Captain Canada in baseball), he alone would probably bring in many new sponsors and advertisers to Rogers Sportsnet and increase views of their games which would boost the ammount they could charge for advertising on their stations. Rogers is also the largest owner of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment which owns the NBA's Toronto Raptors and tried this already with huge money that was offered to lure Steve Nash (Captain Canada of basketball) even though Nash took much less to sign with the Lakers. So anyone who thinks Rogers (Jays owners) wouldn't accept Morneau's contract isn't looking at the big picture.

Edited by robbie111, 15 November 2012 - 03:08 AM.


#15 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:48 AM

The point is that the Twins could do the same thing... they could add players that would generate greater enthusiasm by the fan base and thus with advertisers. But nibbling around the edges of the talent pool won't bring an extra nickel of revenue in. To sell more tickets and advertising, they would need to be bold enough to convince people they're serious about getting back in the hunt this year. That's what the Jays have done and there's no reason the Twins couldn't do the same thing.
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#16 Curt

Curt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:27 AM

"The Twins have historically told the public that their model is to spend about 50% of revenues on their Major League payroll. That goes back all the way through the old Metrodome days when the team had one of the worst revenue streams in MLB and it has continued through the “boom” years of their new ballpark. If they hold to that model, only half of the “new money” from the media deal will see its way in to their payroll budget.

But why should that be the case? What additional expenses come with that $25 million in additional revenue? Absolutely none. It is simply “found money” that comes with no strings attached"


Exactly. There is no reason an increase in revenue should equate to an increase in operating expenses. I always thought that way with the new stadium revenue. Does it cost more to operate from the new stadium? I doubt it. But you have found the perfect example. There is NO WAY that getting additional TV money increases costs.

#17 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:21 AM

I've been posting for two years that the "52 percent of revenue to payroll" model of the metrodome no longer made sense. I'm sure there are added expenses to running TF, but nowhere near the added revenue.

Most of their other-than-Payroll expenses--minor leagues, travel costs, spring training, other salaries, etc--didn't change.

The only thing that makes sense is, they're using that extra revenue to pay for their share of building the stadium. The Pohlads promised to contribute their own money, but aren't actually contributing a penny. The borrowed the money, and are paying it off from stadium. The state, taxpayers, and those who attend games are, in effect, paying 100 percent of the cost of TF.

And that's why the Twins don't have a $125m payroll, which they could, if the Pohlads were contributing to stadium construction costs, as they promised to do.

#18 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:16 PM

I would imagine there are also differences between the Twins being recipients of revenue sharing dollars while playing at the Dome and being contributors of revenue sharing dollars at TF, but because the Twins are uber-secretive about their finances, we'll never know. And as long as they're unwilling to share even the broadest levels of information about their revenues and expenses, as far as I'm concerned, they're fair game for critical speculation as long as they continue to try to pawn off a crappy product on the field to their fans as being Major League Baseball. If they put a high quality product on the field, I don't give a damn how much money they line their own pockets with.
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#19 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,137 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:34 PM

No the Twins shouldn't follow the Blue Jays Bold league, taking on one awful contract and another huge contract that most likely will be bad is not a good way to run a team, it will fail for the Dodgers and it will fail for the Blue Jays long term.

Holy hell you would think the Blue Jays learned their lesson after Rios and Wells, but nope!!

#20 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,104 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:18 AM

Well the Twins would have to find another Marlins-esque team willing to just give immense talent away for a very questionable return. So . . . no one else is going to do that. The Marlins organization is just barbaric!

#21 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,784 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:13 PM

The Jays television contract with Sportsnet (also owned by Rogers), essentially makes all of Canada the Jays region.As lucrative as that may sound, it's not, according to the Globe and Mail it netted them $36M last season.


If another company owned the Blue Jays that figure would be substantially higher. The Jays are owned by a cable company which owns sports networks in Canada. The 36M is a figure they made up to pay themselves and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

This is from Forbes magazine.

But Toronto is owned by $14 billion-in-sales Rogers Communications, which also owns sports channels that pump through Blue Jays games as well as those of its other two teams, the NBA’s Raptors and NHL’s Maple Leafs. The company’s strategy of using sports programming to boost profits has been paying off and shares of Rogers have been outperforming the market recently. On top of the increase in carrier fees Rogers can command from its sports programming, last year Rogers Sportsnet paid the Blue Jays a rights fee of $36 million. So Rogers gets a doubleheader from its sports programming. The Blue Jays have a much larger cable television audience than the Marlins and thus star power on the diamond can translate into much more money from advertisers.

It does dwarf the twins revenue, the 36 million is a fee they basically pay to themselves and really doesn't represent anything. Rogers Tv network paid Rogers sports team. They could have made the figure higher for example 180 million if they were selling the team to show how much revenue it brings in. So where they make their money is in advertising, cable company carrier fees (from competing cable companies for example Shaw in canada) and shares in the Rogers company. It's a different model.



You're just talking about Rogers, not the Blue Jays. The Pohlads also make a tonne more money from avenues other than the Twins, it doesn't all funnel back to the team, unless they want it to.

Rogers is a massive communications corporation, it's wireless communications division is the reason for it's increased share price, which brings in over 3 times the amount of it's cable operations. They are not the major shareholder in the MLSE, they own 37.5% of it, so does Bell Canada while Kilmer Sports own 25%, none of which has anything to do with the Blue Jays anyway, it's just one of their many assets.

Do they undervalue broadcast rights? Sure they do, so they can increase profit from ad revenue, again nothing to do with the Jays. In fact, part of this spending spree has more to do with the 25 million they are getting from MLB than anything. As opposed to the Twins, the Jays are blowing the wad on payroll, it's free money for them.

Sorry, if someone was to buy the Blue Jays and Rogers told them the broadcast rights were worth 180 million, I want to meet that guy, I have a Ford Focus he can buy for 3 million.

Finally and most importantly, Rogers is a publicly traded company, they can't simply put whatever they want into a baseball team just because they want to, not without their shareholders revolting on them anyway. They are committing more money to the team, I'll concede that but at great risk if it does not work out, if this team does not perform to expectation and bring in the expected increase in revenue through a more attractive product, there is going to be some pretty unhappy wireless investors.

#22 raindog

raindog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 302 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

Couldn't agree more. TR has proven that he's only capable of thinking small. For all of the praise he got for signing Willingham and Doumit, we need to keep in mind that the few moves he made last offseason netted the team exactly three wins over their dismal 2011 campaign. The current Twins simply cannot see the big picture, and seem completely adverse to any free-agent risk -- other than their death-by-a-thousand-cuts dabbles in the mlb dumpsters. I doubt TR was even in on any of the trade conversations with Miami. The fans will have to demand change soon.


How is this Terry Ryan's fault? He is not a member of the Pohlad's family. All he can do is make small moves under budget constraints.

Also, I know this topic is more about the philosophy or making big splashes than the specific deal. However, anyone who thinks this would have been a good trade for us is just wrong. The Twins would still be terrible. The Jays had a really good squad to build off. It's going to take the Twins awhile to reach that level.

#23 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,755 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

I'm not sure I agree with the spending for the sake of spending argument. As others pointed out, Toronto has a window of opportunity right now to take the east where it didn't look like it would exist a year or two ago, and even though they were in last, they'd have likely been a contender in the central. In their case, spending the money makes sense. If the Twins were a flawed but good team (like 2010), I'd tend to agree, but their needs are much greater. We desparately need starting pitching and production up the middle, and while it is possible to build a contending team via trades and FA signings to help those areas, there's going to be a lot of 1 year type make good/gambles to make it work along with some smart, targeted FA signings... and gambles are just that.

The Twins strategy should be as follow:
1) Make one or two longer contract good FA SP signings
2) Trade Span or Morneau for a AA type pitcher with a good ceiling
3) Sign 2 more SPs and at least one MI to a 1 year prove it deal.

Odds are good that not everyone in the 3rd bucket will work out, and even the FA signings aren't exactly a sure thing.

#24 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,230 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:25 AM

Terry Ryan has repeated, over and over, that he has never once been denied money when he asked for it, so yes, he is complicit in any decision not to spend to win, and to restrain the budget.

I also disagree 100% the Twins would still be terrible if Johnson, Buerhle, and Reyes were healthy all year. That's a lot more wins.
Lighten up Francis....

#25 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

Funny no one mention Bonifacio one of the best ut and fastest players in mlb.

#26 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

John Buck is also a great right hand power hitting catcher who hit 20 hrs and a .281 ba in 2010 for the Jays, a very good replacement for Butera.

#27 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:14 PM

1 reason they wont is that david st pete and terry ryan would have to give up there bonuses for slashing payroll...how much did they pocket after cutting 18.4 million last year?

#28 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:18 PM

i think the most intriguing thing about this trade might be that new marlins manager, mike redmond, had been managing in toronto's system and might have been personally responsible for many of the prospects miami will receive, both as pieces of the trade and as a minor league manager. i think redmond managed marisnick this season in class A at dunedin of the florida state league. redmond may be sly like columbo, and the owner of the marlins may have just cleaned the canvas for more painting, and not be done...... but jeff loria has done some kinda shady/slanted (expos to mlb/then buying marlins with a loan for the difference from mlb in 2002) dealings in the past. oh, as an aside......... i think it should just be world series championship - not .....ships - , as the first marlin's championship loria was not a part of as owner.


in fact the ownership group from baaaston , loria and the commish PUD selig were all charged with the rico act in 2002
but once again the good ole boy network slipped off thr hook , now pud is looking imnto the trade?? hahaha what a joke selig is just sticking his hand out for a little taste from loria , if you look at the contracts that all 3 signed they are backloaded , as loria intended to trade them all any way ..time for pud selig loria and the wilpons to be removed from baseball to keep the games intergraty

#29 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,784 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:31 PM

i think the most intriguing thing about this trade might be that new marlins manager, mike redmond, had been managing in toronto's system and might have been personally responsible for many of the prospects miami will receive, both as pieces of the trade and as a minor league manager. i think redmond managed marisnick this season in class A at dunedin of the florida state league. redmond may be sly like columbo, and the owner of the marlins may have just cleaned the canvas for more painting, and not be done...... but jeff loria has done some kinda shady/slanted (expos to mlb/then buying marlins with a loan for the difference from mlb in 2002) dealings in the past. oh, as an aside......... i think it should just be world series championship - not .....ships - , as the first marlin's championship loria was not a part of as owner.


in fact the ownership group from baaaston , loria and the commish PUD selig were all charged with the rico act in 2002
but once again the good ole boy network slipped off thr hook , now pud is looking imnto the trade?? hahaha what a joke selig is just sticking his hand out for a little taste from loria , if you look at the contracts that all 3 signed they are backloaded , as loria intended to trade them all any way ..time for pud selig loria and the wilpons to be removed from baseball to keep the games intergraty


johnnydakota>English language

Posted Image

#30 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:20 PM

[SIZE=2]Agree 100% with J.C.
Let's give Terry Ryan a little time here. Pitchers and Catchers don't report for 3 months yet.
Trades are always great fodder for the Hot Stove League. Connie Mack dismantled 2 World Champion teams, in the teens; Frank 'Home Run' Baker, Eddie Collins et al. Then again in the 30's with Jimmy Foxx, 'Lefty' Grove, Al Simmons and others.
I remember growing up ... Harvey Kuenn for Rocky Colovito ... man I was knocked back on my 10yr. old butt by that one!
Let's wait a bit to see what TR does.[/SIZE]

so 18 years isint enough time?
the kids born after our last worldseries victory are now bar hopping ....what have you done for us terry? nothin ...hope you choke on your payroll cutting bonus