Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Jake Odorizzi, What's going on w/ him?

jake odorizzi
  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,179 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 02:32 AM

I wonder if the Twins are gauging the cost to acquire Luis Castillo. 3 years team control a 3-5 million cost next year in salary and a number 2 starter. What would we have to give up to get him? Blazovich, Larnarch and Colina maybe add a young pitcher like Poppin or Smeltzer. Going with quantity as Cincinnati may want lots of prospects for a faster rebuild. With a top starter at a low dollar cost we can pivot to bullpen, SS and Cruz and have enough to deal for all.

#22 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,416 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 07:56 AM

 

The Pohlad family bought the Twins for $36M in 1984 and it has an estimated value of $670M. The Pohlad family is worth $3.8B. I think they can afford to offset their main business profits with financial losses by the Twins. Therefore, I propose they skip all the posturing and tell Falvey and Levine to sign Cruz, sign Odorizzi, sign Cory Oliver, sign Didi Gregorius, sign Brad Hand, fill any remaining weaknesses with the best available options, and get ready for a run at the World Series in 2021.

 

Let’s pretend for just a moment that the best allocation of tens of millions of dollars from those other businesses would be to spend an extra $XM on player payroll. You know as opposed to feeding the homeless, building battered women’s shelters, curing cancer, etc.

 

All of the owners have substantial financial resource from other sources. Therefore, if it makes sense for the Pohlads to take a loss of X million, it makes sense for all the other owners to do the same. The result would be that the Twins would have an even bigger budget disparity vs big market teams given those teams produce considerable more profit than the Twins. Here is the good news. You no longer have a reason to be mad that the team is unwilling to take a giant loss.

  • rdehring likes this

#23 terrydactyls1947

terrydactyls1947

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 758 posts
  • LocationCumberland Center, Maine

Posted 21 December 2020 - 09:11 AM

Let’s pretend for just a moment that the best allocation of tens of millions of dollars from those other businesses would be to spend an extra $XM on player payroll. You know as opposed to feeding the homeless, building battered women’s shelters, curing cancer, etc.
 
All of the owners have substantial financial resource from other sources. Therefore, if it makes sense for the Pohlads to take a loss of X million, it makes sense for all the other owners to do the same. The result would be that the Twins would have an even bigger budget disparity vs big market teams given those teams produce considerable more profit than the Twins. Here is the good news. You no longer have a reason to be mad that the team is unwilling to take a giant loss.


Do you subscribe to other conspiracy theories, or just ownership collusion? I understand the economics of ownership. All I was "attempting" to point out is that this would be a great time to think outside the box and build the team.

#24 sdangus

sdangus

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 11:24 AM

I've never been able to figure out why people think owners should voluntarily spend millions of dollars just because they have money from other businesses. Does anybody ask you to buy them movie tickets just because you have some money in savings? Well, maybe they do, but should they?

 

You know of course that these people are already being asked every day for donations to other causes. It's not like they don't have plenty of places to hand out freebies.

  • rdehring likes this

#25 Physics Guy

Physics Guy

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 22 December 2020 - 01:06 AM

 

I've never been able to figure out why people think owners should voluntarily spend millions of dollars just because they have money from other businesses. Does anybody ask you to buy them movie tickets just because you have some money in savings? Well, maybe they do, but should they?

 

You know of course that these people are already being asked every day for donations to other causes. It's not like they don't have plenty of places to hand out freebies.

Well how about we ask them to spend savings from previous years from the baseball team?It's my opinion that the Twins have rarely exceeded that 50ish% of revenues that people talk about and more often are well under it.I'm fine with saving some $$ when you are rebuilding and aren't quite ready for young players to take off (for example 2013-2016), but when we are contenders let's use those savings to get over the hump.

  • TiberTwins and adjacent like this

#26 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 95 posts

Posted 22 December 2020 - 08:20 AM

 

I've never been able to figure out why people think owners should voluntarily spend millions of dollars just because they have money from other businesses. Does anybody ask you to buy them movie tickets just because you have some money in savings? Well, maybe they do, but should they?

 

You know of course that these people are already being asked every day for donations to other causes. It's not like they don't have plenty of places to hand out freebies.

 

I understand you are responding to a thread, but the Twins don't lose money. The team can afford to pay players.

 

We know the team doesn't want to spend money, sure. We have recent history of a GM who opened up the coffers who was then demoted and replaced by his old boss.


#27 prouster

prouster

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 743 posts

Posted 25 December 2020 - 07:55 AM

I've never been able to figure out why people think owners should voluntarily spend millions of dollars just because they have money from other businesses. Does anybody ask you to buy them movie tickets just because you have some money in savings? Well, maybe they do, but should they?

You know of course that these people are already being asked every day for donations to other causes. It's not like they don't have plenty of places to hand out freebies.


You have in fact described the entire premise of consumer culture in your one example.

#28 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,075 posts

Posted 25 December 2020 - 09:04 PM

 

I'd rather have Hill on one year than Odorizzi on three.

Eh... probably, but only from a risk mitigation position because Hill looked entirely human down the stretch. I don't think he will be good in 2021.


#29 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,075 posts

Posted 25 December 2020 - 09:06 PM

 

I've never been able to figure out why people think owners should voluntarily spend millions of dollars just because they have money from other businesses. Does anybody ask you to buy them movie tickets just because you have some money in savings? Well, maybe they do, but should they?

 

You know of course that these people are already being asked every day for donations to other causes. It's not like they don't have plenty of places to hand out freebies.

I don't think owners should operate teams at a loss (though I wouldn't complain if they did, as owning a team is often a status purchase and every ownership group sees a massive windfall when they sell) but it'd be cool if they operated closer to where they're supposed to operate, which is just over 50% of revenue going to payroll.

 

But ownership groups cook the books so heavily that most don't actually get anywhere near that percentage.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#30 arby58

arby58

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 35 posts

Posted 26 December 2020 - 08:49 AM

 

The Pohlad family bought the Twins for $36M in 1984 and it has an estimated value of $670M. The Pohlad family is worth $3.8B. I think they can afford to offset their main business profits with financial losses by the Twins. Therefore, I propose they skip all the posturing and tell Falvey and Levine to sign Cruz, sign Odorizzi, sign Cory Oliver, sign Didi Gregorius, sign Brad Hand, fill any remaining weaknesses with the best available options, and get ready for a run at the World Series in 2021.

It's fun to play with other people's money, but the people that have the money didn't get and/or keep the money by making those sorts of 'business' decisions. Some of the worst professional sports owners have been these types of 'hobby' owners who don't care about business metrics and throw money and caution to the winds. Dan Snyder of the Washington Football Team types.

  • rdehring likes this

#31 terrydactyls1947

terrydactyls1947

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 758 posts
  • LocationCumberland Center, Maine

Posted 26 December 2020 - 09:10 AM

There is a big difference between spending money and being crazy.I put Snyder in the crazy category.I just think that now is the time to increase the salary budget by 10% and bring home some playoff success.

 

It's fun to play with other people's money, but the people that have the money didn't get and/or keep the money by making those sorts of 'business' decisions. Some of the worst professional sports owners have been these types of 'hobby' owners who don't care about business metrics and throw money and caution to the winds. Dan Snyder of the Washington Football Team types.

 

  • wabene likes this

#32 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,416 posts

Posted 26 December 2020 - 10:27 AM

 

I don't think owners should operate teams at a loss (though I wouldn't complain if they did, as owning a team is often a status purchase and every ownership group sees a massive windfall when they sell) but it'd be cool if they operated closer to where they're supposed to operate, which is just over 50% of revenue going to payroll.

 

But ownership groups cook the books so heavily that most don't actually get anywhere near that percentage.

 

That 50% number is an old sound bite that fans cling to with very little thought. For starters, I bet that fans define that 50% differently than teams, companies in general or the tax code. Fans take player salaries and divide by revenue. The cost of personnel includes payroll taxes, medical benefits and retirement plans. It also includes. Draft bonuses and international signing bonuses. So, when this sound bite was anointed as the measure by which to live by fans, nobody stopped to ask how payroll costs were defined.

 

That number was also derived prior to substantial additions in personnel related to analytics and development practices. Shifts in how businesses invest in personnel, systems, and practices is common across most industries and it changes this type of metric.

 

What really throws me is that so many people continue to point to this principal assuming it would help the Twins without any actual thought as to the impact on payroll if this practice was followed. If all the owners followed this practice, the result would be that disparity in spending between top and bottom markets would grow. This is not an opinion it’s a very basic mathematical certainty. If you don’t believe me, calculate the difference in payroll among the top 5 revenue teams for the past 5 years. Then, calculate the difference based on 50% of revenue.

  • rdehring likes this

#33 adjacent

adjacent

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 26 December 2020 - 11:03 AM

All this discussion above made me with for a different success model for a baseball team. I model that not consist in tanking for 5 years (at least) to have the opportunity to be successful in a 3-year window.

  • ashbury likes this

#34 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 351 posts

Posted 26 December 2020 - 11:35 AM

I wonder if there will be special discounts on free agents today?


#35 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan for life!

  • Member
  • 26,145 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 26 December 2020 - 11:44 AM

I wonder if there will be special discounts on free agents today?

We missed the Black Friday sales shortly after the World Series. Some good merchandise is still available, but anything at a very low price might be only the picked-over stuff on clearance by now.
 

  • lecroy24fan and diehardtwinsfan like this

Look back & be grateful, look ahead & be hopeful, look around & be helpful.


#36 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,765 posts

Posted 26 December 2020 - 05:12 PM

 

That 50% number is an old sound bite that fans cling to with very little thought. For starters, I bet that fans define that 50% differently than teams, companies in general or the tax code. Fans take player salaries and divide by revenue. The cost of personnel includes payroll taxes, medical benefits and retirement plans. It also includes. Draft bonuses and international signing bonuses. So, when this sound bite was anointed as the measure by which to live by fans, nobody stopped to ask how payroll costs were defined.

 

That number was also derived prior to substantial additions in personnel related to analytics and development practices. Shifts in how businesses invest in personnel, systems, and practices is common across most industries and it changes this type of metric.

 

What really throws me is that so many people continue to point to this principal assuming it would help the Twins without any actual thought as to the impact on payroll if this practice was followed. If all the owners followed this practice, the result would be that disparity in spending between top and bottom markets would grow. This is not an opinion it’s a very basic mathematical certainty. If you don’t believe me, calculate the difference in payroll among the top 5 revenue teams for the past 5 years. Then, calculate the difference based on 50% of revenue.

 

Record revenue the last 5 years before this, while payroll actually dropped last year......so, it's pretty easy to see if the teams are spending more or less on players. Oh, and teams in all sports keep selling for record amounts, including the Mets just in the last month or so.....and how many analytics people would need to be hired to equal on real FA at 5-10 million? Lots and lots.......Also, more teams are building businesses and parking lots and other things THAT LITERALLY only exist as extensions to the team, and that revenue doesn't count in MLB revenue......

  • Brock Beauchamp likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#37 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,075 posts

Posted 27 December 2020 - 12:42 AM

 

That 50% number is an old sound bite that fans cling to with very little thought. For starters, I bet that fans define that 50% differently than teams, companies in general or the tax code. Fans take player salaries and divide by revenue. The cost of personnel includes payroll taxes, medical benefits and retirement plans. It also includes. Draft bonuses and international signing bonuses. So, when this sound bite was anointed as the measure by which to live by fans, nobody stopped to ask how payroll costs were defined.

 

That number was also derived prior to substantial additions in personnel related to analytics and development practices. Shifts in how businesses invest in personnel, systems, and practices is common across most industries and it changes this type of metric.

 

What really throws me is that so many people continue to point to this principal assuming it would help the Twins without any actual thought as to the impact on payroll if this practice was followed. If all the owners followed this practice, the result would be that disparity in spending between top and bottom markets would grow. This is not an opinion it’s a very basic mathematical certainty. If you don’t believe me, calculate the difference in payroll among the top 5 revenue teams for the past 5 years. Then, calculate the difference based on 50% of revenue.

Why do you carry so much water for billionaires that sell teams for literal multitudes more than they paid for them?

 

The Pohlads bought the Twins for roughly $40m in... 1984? Going from memory here.

 

But the Twins would sell for roughly $1b today.

 

No big deal. That's only several tens of millions gain. Per year. For 40 years.

 

No biggie. You're totally right. 


#38 sdangus

sdangus

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 27 December 2020 - 07:27 AM

 

Why do you carry so much water for billionaires that sell teams for literal multitudes more than they paid for them?

 

The Pohlads bought the Twins for roughly $40m in... 1984? Going from memory here.

 

But the Twins would sell for roughly $1b today.

 

No big deal. That's only several tens of millions gain. Per year. For 40 years.

 

No biggie. You're totally right. 

Here's another way to look at an investment, My goal in my retirement accounts is to have my money double every seven years. That's a pretty nice return, but for the most part it has pretty much played out that way over the years. I'm sure most businesses look to have their investments pay off even better.

 

Take Pohlad's original investment of $36M and double that every 7 years. What do you get? Way more than the projected current value of the Twins at $670M.

  • Heistyman likes this

#39 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 351 posts

Posted 27 December 2020 - 11:03 AM

from NY Times - Aug. 16, 1984

"... Pohlad purchased Calvin Griffith's 52-percent share of the Twins for an estimated total of $32 million, marking the end of an era for Griffith, the last big-league owner to make his living solely on baseball ...."

"... Pohlad bought an additional 42 percent of the club's stock from H. Gabriel Murphy through the Tampa Bay Baseball Group, an organization of businessmen who agreed to sell Pohlad, for a reported $11.5 million, the shares they purchased from Murphy last April."

 

According to Forbes - In 2020, the franchise had an estimated value of 1.3 billion U.S. dollars.

 

The Twins original investment was $5 million down, the remainder financed. MLB is an invite only club.

 

Why do we care? The history of communities funding the costs for stadiums across the United States is well documented. The economic system of our country has a long history of such expenditures.

 

Nobody needs to support the Pohlads, They are doing just fine. 

Nobody needs to attack the Pohlads. It is pointless.

 

What Odorizzi is looking for is some semblance of a contract which will either set him up to pitch for a team that both pays him well and gives him the support to be successful, or he would look to sign a multi-year contract for a substantial figure, say about $40-50 million.

The Twins have to decide whether Odorizzi is going to be one of their major signings this offseason. In the meantime, the team is poking around trades and potential fits like Kluber.

All of baseball is held back by the specter of a reduced schedule, a change in public policy to allow for full stadiums, continued improvements in the Covid world, and general owner-player peace.

Meanwhile, winter hot stove arguments should continue and we can all keep the dreams alive for next season.

Odorizzi, like us, is waiting for some solutions to the current situation.

  • Brock Beauchamp likes this

#40 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,075 posts

Posted 27 December 2020 - 11:13 AM

 

Here's another way to look at an investment, My goal in my retirement accounts is to have my money double every seven years. That's a pretty nice return, but for the most part it has pretty much played out that way over the years. I'm sure most businesses look to have their investments pay off even better.

 

Take Pohlad's original investment of $36M and double that every 7 years. What do you get? Way more than the projected current value of the Twins at $670M.

Forbes valued the Twins at $1.3b earlier this year.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: jake odorizzi