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
109 replies to this topic

#61 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 179 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 11:12 AM

 

I am never exactly sure what people are trying to argue where profits are concerned. So, what exactly is the argument? The common inference is that because MLB owners are rich that they should be willing to operate at break-even or even a loss. The other inference seems to be that because increases in team valuations have been very high they should be willing to operate at b/e or a loss. I guess the overlying inference is that we could afford elite FAs if only owners were willing to forgo profits. What exactly is the point of constantly point in pointing back at owner's profit?

 

Well, yes, they should operate the team at break-even. That's what I would do. Wouldn't you?

 

You are already a billionaire, you can already live whatever lifestyle you want. You have other ventures making money. Beyond keeping a reserve of funds for the team (which yes should probably be enough to operate the team for at least a full year -- heck, 5 years), why not operate the team as a break-even venture? This would zero out your taxes and be a heck of a lot more fun. In the United States, wages are 100% tax deductible.

 

Isn't sports about having fun? If running a team is a headache, sell the team! If counting beans is what drives you in life, stay in real estate.

  • whosafraidofluigirussolo, DocBauer and tarheeltwinsfan like this

#62 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 01:58 PM

 

Well, yes, they should operate the team at break-even. That's what I would do. Wouldn't you?

 

You are already a billionaire, you can already live whatever lifestyle you want. You have other ventures making money. Beyond keeping a reserve of funds for the team (which yes should probably be enough to operate the team for at least a full year -- heck, 5 years), why not operate the team as a break-even venture? This would zero out your taxes and be a heck of a lot more fun. In the United States, wages are 100% tax deductible.

 

Isn't sports about having fun? If running a team is a headache, sell the team! If counting beans is what drives you in life, stay in real estate.

 

OK let’s go with sports should be fun and owners should be willing to invest with no financial benefit. Why does that not apply to players? Shouldn’t they be willing to work for free or perhaps what an average guy makes or 2X the average guy? By your logic why should a player get pad 100M or 200M or even 300M? They should play for fun right?

 

Let’s pretend for just a moment it makes sense that owners were willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me how that would benefit fans? Obviously, they cut prices but they could do that and still remain profitable by paying players less. The next nearest professional baseball league pays 1/8 of MLB so the players would still be here at ½ the pay. The question is specific to profitability. With all the belly aching about owners should be willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me why that would benefit fans?

  • rdehring likes this

#63 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 179 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 08:19 AM

You missed my point completely.

 

OK let’s go with sports should be fun and owners should be willing to invest with no financial benefit. Why does that not apply to players?

 

 

As I said, the owners are already billionaires. The players are not, for one. For another, putting together any team, sports or not, requires paying wages.

 

Let’s pretend for just a moment it makes sense that owners were willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me how that would benefit fans?

 

 

I suppose you could ask some Yankees fans this question.  


#64 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 12:29 PM

 

You missed my point completely.

 

 

As I said, the owners are already billionaires. The players are not, for one. For another, putting together any team, sports or not, requires paying wages.

 

 

I suppose you could ask some Yankees fans this question.  

 

And you completely ignored my question. How would fans benefit by owners operating a break-even model?


#65 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 16,175 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 12:40 PM

 

And you completely ignored my question. How would fans benefit by owners operating a break-even model?

 

I have stayed out of this discussion, but it's only 'break-even' if they look at it on a strict year-to-year basis.

 

The owners have all banked prior years and decades of earnings and increased equity in their investment that overall they aren't breaking even. These aren't publicly traded companies that have demanding shareholders requiring profits increase every single quarter . If they want to go out and spend more and take less profit for a year or several years they can. In fact plenty of teams regularly do, including the Twins.

  • whosafraidofluigirussolo likes this

#66 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 01:36 PM

 

I have stayed out of this discussion, but it's only 'break-even' if they look at it on a strict year-to-year basis.

 

The owners have all banked prior years and decades of earnings and increased equity in their investment that overall they aren't breaking even. These aren't publicly traded companies that have demanding shareholders requiring profits increase every single quarter . If they want to go out and spend more and take less profit for a year or several years they can. In fact plenty of teams regularly do, including the Twins.

 

Now we are adapting the argument and those does not work for debating financial theories. Your argument is they could afford to break-even or take less profit in certain years. I would not argue that point. Actually, I would say this is followed to some degree today. Obviously, practices vary by team.

 

I am addressing the specific position that owners should approach management as if their billion dollar investment is a hobby or that they don’t need to take a profit because their team valuation has increased. For starters, valuation are a product of forecasted profit and sustainability. The model you suggest would not be quite as detrimental but a break-even philosophy as proposed here would virtually wipe out the valuation teams have built over decades.

 

More to the point, I keep asking what is the value to fans? The assertion many have made here that this practice would allow the Twins to acquire high end free agents we can’t afford now. Of course, that position is horribly flawed. If invested as suggested, roughly $1.2B would be invested in players. The number of players is not going to change. Therefore, the average salary would go up by roughly $1.25M. Buying power would not change at all. As a matter of fact, the bigger market teams earn more profit. Therefore, the revenue disparity which is the actual problem (not profit) would be increased and the bigger market teams would be have an even greater advantage.


#67 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,171 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 15 January 2021 - 04:56 PM

Oderizzi ? Oderizzi ! What's going on with Jake Oderizzi ? :)

  • LA VIkes Fan, Otwins, tarheeltwinsfan and 2 others like this

#68 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 375 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 05:19 PM

Odorizzi should get 3/$39-45 million. I hope he does for his sake, but I don'y envision the Twins signing him at those numbers. If nobody bites, perhaps the Twins circle back for a one year contract as high as $13-15 million. Falvine have their eyes elsewhere.

  • LA VIkes Fan likes this

#69 rdehring

rdehring

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 2,300 posts

Posted 16 January 2021 - 10:22 AM

 

Oderizzi ? Oderizzi ! What's going on with Jake Oderizzi ? :)

I to, Thegrin, see more comments to this post and click on it every day anticipating some news on what is happening with Odo. And what do I find, more of the debate over who is more/less greedy, the billionaire owners or millionaire players. 

 

Can we please have some news regarding Odo? I for one would love the Twins to sign him as their #3 or #4 starter. Don't care if it is a one year, two year or three year deal...just get it done.


#70 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,179 posts

Posted 16 January 2021 - 08:50 PM

Skipped a few posts and realized I didn't miss anything at all. (My apologies to posters).

This thread is about Oddo.

We got him for nothing.

He was solid in 2018.

He was great in 2019 and earned an All Star invite, FWIW, and finished well after a dip.

His 2020 was a NIGHTMARE of injury but just nickel and dime stuff in retrospect. So he's just some 31yo "afterthought" at this point?

Forgetting Bauer, who is better out there on the FA market? NOBODY other than possibly Tanaka. And there is a serious debate as to the Yankees, or a west coast team or a return to Japan. Agent hype? Maybe.

Oddo is NOT a number 1 and on a contendjng team not a #2. But he is a very solid #3 To compete with Pineda and often pitches like he was a #2. What's not to like at $12M-ish?
  • Twins33, LA VIkes Fan, IndianaTwin and 4 others like this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown


#71 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,217 posts

Posted 20 January 2021 - 05:19 PM

 

Odorizzi's 2nd half wasn't as bad as you might think. Take out the 4 IP, 9 ER clunker against the Yankees and he was 5-2 with a 2.98 ERA. He was actually very good in Aug/Sep, posting a 3.04 ERA with 65 K's in 50.1 innings. That being said, I don't know if he worth $13+ MM a season at this stage of his career.

Eh. You can play that game with anyone. Bottom line is he's good for about a 4-4.50 ERA and a lot of 5 and 6 inning starts. That's not horrible, but I'm not signing on for 3 years of it. If they could sign Odo for exactly what they just signed Happ for, give me Odo. But I doubt that was the case.

  • LA VIkes Fan likes this

#72 LA VIkes Fan

LA VIkes Fan

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 20 January 2021 - 08:13 PM

I love the idea of Odo at 12m a year for 2 years, maybe even 3 years.The problem is that he's going to be offered more than that from another team. He's likley to wind up with 13-15m a year for 3, maybe 4 years. Howeda is right, he's good for a 3.8- 4.5 ERA, lots of 5 to 6 inning starts that eat up your bullpen, and at least one IL stint a year. There's nothing wrong with that but I think he's likely to get paid more than I think that's worth by someone else (Boston). Tahat kind of contract it will make it unlikely that we sign a higher end reliever or middle IF, and may make signing a hig end DH tough.

 

I think we have these choices:

 

1) Odorizzi/Paxon, Cruz/Osuna, and everything else stays pretty much the same. In house or Gonzalez as options for UT/5th IF. 

 

2) Odorizzi/Paxon, no DH signing and Semien or Gregorious with Arraez the UT and Polanco the 2B (or that in reverse). Doanldson, Sano, the young guys and OFs rotating thru the DH spot.

 

3) Cruz/Osuna, Semien or Gregorious with Arraez the UT and Polanco the 2B (or that in reverse), Dobnak as the 5th SP and rest of the pitching depth in house, with Doanldson, Sano, the young guys and OFs rotating thru the DH spot.  

 

4 Odo/Paxon, a good reliever - Colome, Soria, Hand (?), Andrellton Simmons at SS with Arraez the UT and Polanco the 2B (or that in reverse), and  Doanldson, Sano, the young guys and OFs rotating thru the DH spot.

 

I like Cruz but i'm more and more coming to the view that options 2 or 4 are the best ones. 


#73 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,937 posts

Posted 21 January 2021 - 02:23 PM

 

That’s not exactly an enlightened position.

 

1) We know the revenue with a high degree of accuracy. This is a very different case than many private companies and of course it’s crucial to understanding profitability.
2) We have a very accurate estimate of Player expense. This includes Salary + benefits and payroll tax, draft bonuses, etc. This expense represents 50+ percent of revenue and roughly 60% of operating cost.
3) Variable operating costs such as travel / hotel / meals / etc can also be estimated quite accurately.
4) Stadium cost is public record and stadium maintenance is another cost that can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy
5) Non-player personnel is the largest operating cost. All you would need is an employee roster with positions and you could estimate personnel cost with a fair degree of accuracy. I am not sure payroll taxes payments are probably public. This would also aid in estimating personnel costs with reasonable accuracy.
6) Equipment (training equipment / computers, etc) would be the hardest part to estimate. However, those costs are less than 1 percent of revenue.

 

So, we have a very accurate view of 100% of the revenue and over 60% of operating cost. If the other 40% can be estimated with 90% accuracy, and it can, that would mean we can estimate the Twins net profit to +/- $10M or 3% of revenue. So, it’s not an accurate portrayal to say the public knows nothing. It’s more accurate to say that the public elects to take an uniformed position.

When you have no clue about what is spent on your point number 5 you have no clue what expenses are for the team in terms of payroll. 


#74 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,937 posts

Posted 21 January 2021 - 02:27 PM

The cheap will sign early. The intermediate will sign when there is a great offer. The rest are playing a game of chicken. 


#75 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 22 January 2021 - 07:21 AM

 

When you have no clue about what is spent on your point number 5 you have no clue what expenses are for the team in terms of payroll. 

 

In 10 seconds of searching I found this information.  https://www.mlb.com/...am/front-office

 

All of the Milb employees would take a modest amount of digging. Anyone with the proper database could estimate salary within +/- 10%. Given operating costs are roughly 1/3 of revenue, that provides an estimate with a variance of +/- 3.3% revenue. I am not certain but tax records are probably public information which would provide a very close estimate.

 

It's alot easier to complain and cry conspiracy or you just don't understand how to compile the estimate. Either way, MLB profits are not the great mystery some would like to assert.


#76 Battle ur tail off

Battle ur tail off

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 22 January 2021 - 10:52 AM

Give me Jake on a fair deal. Here's the problem I see. The top of his game in his prime he is a #3-4 starter. Everything from here on out with him will likely be a decline. 

 

Do we want 4/60 on him? I'm guessing that is close to what I will take. I'd rather they did 2/36-2/40 if he would take it today. I'd surely be offering it now before some of the bigger players make their run at him after all the better names get gobbled up.


#77 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,171 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 28 January 2021 - 01:24 PM

No team made $$ last year and its doubtful many teams will make a profit in 2021. Estimates like 2/40 for Odo, I feel are vastly over-speculated. (Is that a sentence?).I doubt anyone will offer Odo anything close to that kind of $$.:)


#78 rdehring

rdehring

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 2,300 posts

Posted 28 January 2021 - 03:12 PM

 

No team made $$ last year and its doubtful many teams will make a profit in 2021. Estimates like 2/40 for Odo, I feel are vastly over-speculated. (Is that a sentence?).I doubt anyone will offer Odo anything close to that kind of $$.:)

Not close enough to spring training for Jake to begin to panic. Give it another ten days to two weeks and his agent may call the Twins. Another one year deal for something between $10M and $15M. If at the lower end, would be a good deal for the Twins and acceptable for Jake. If near the higher number, a good deal for Jake and acceptable for the Twins if he can pitch like 2019.


#79 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 179 posts

Posted 01 February 2021 - 10:51 AM

The only pitchers I can think of who suddenly had a comedic amount and variety of injuries never pitched the same again. Erickson, Santana, and Pavano -- and all three of those guys were better than Odorizzi in their primes. Two of them were Odorizzi's age when it started.

 

If we ever catch a glance of Odorizzi wearing a bloody sock while still pitching 100% and appearing to be in no pain whatsoever, I will change my opinion.


#80 rdehring

rdehring

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 2,300 posts

Posted 01 February 2021 - 11:03 AM

It's always good to come to these comments and not see that he has/is signing with someone else. Assuming the new schedule gets approved today by the players, there is another month for the Twins and Odorizzi to touch base and get something done. 

  • tarheeltwinsfan likes this



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