I agree. Last season started out poorly for a team that was projected to be a contender. Add in the usually poor weather in the early going and you effect the overall attendance. I believe, that a better start would have pushed the attendance over 2 mil. On top of that they have some pretty good pitchers that they need to either make room for or trade. In a mid market setting they are better not to trade youth as that way, they can keep a good core together. I can almost imagine a time in the not so distant future when they may be trading some good starters to make room for the youngsters.

Tremendous post, and an absolutely fresh and original idea in how to examine payroll outlay for a team. Since only 2 teams in all of MLB...Atlanta and Toronto maybe?...are required to actually make public what their actual income is for a given season, speculation is all we can work with. But the reporting of payrolls IS something written in ink that can be verified. And attendance IS something written in ink that can be verified. 

I have to admit, I am surprised the Twins were that high on your list in $ per person in attendance. 

I am not a Pohlad family/ownership basher. I actually think the Twins have a pretty good ownership situation, and that was really proven to me during Covid when they were one of the very first teams to pay all of their minor leaguers, and all of their staff. A raise in payroll has been pretty consistent that past decade, and they've usually sat right at the median of league wise spending. 

I'm glad you brought up the Padres. But I'd also include the Rangers in an example of how extreme shifts are taking place on the front of MLB incomes. The Padres, if I remember right, still had an agreement with Bally and their parent company but Bally just pulled out. The Rangers were supposed to be paid something like $100M per season through 2032. They are now receiving approximately 85% of their previous expected number for 2024 on a 1yr deal that expires once the season is done. Don't think they went on a huge spending spree the past few years without counting on that $100M per season being there? Now what happens to them next offseason? They simply aren't going to find a new TV or streaming deal that's going to come close are they? Same with the Padres this season, under the MLB TV umbrella. 

Where I DO HAVE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS with the Pohlad's is their profitability from the Twins. By that, let's assume a $300M income on average. That's based on nothing but educated guesses by other sources, but I use it as a reasonably sound starting point. So 50-52% of income goes to payroll. OK, so $156 is gone and accounted for, leaving the organization $144M to run everything else from minor leaguers and personnel, to ML personnel and the FO itself, to scouts, to advertising, to upgrades at Target Field, to travel-food-lodging expenses for the ML team. And we could go on and on and on. The problem is, we have no real idea how large of a final tab those kinds of things add up to. But ONLY for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, let's just say ALL of running the actual organization comes up to $110M. That would leave the Pohlad's a profit of $34M on the season in this example. I've never believed a business owner, including one who owns a sports franchise, should be expected to run their business in the red, or simply break even and make ZERO profit on a yearly basis.

HOWEVER, when you have a quality team that is competitive, right on the precipice of maybe making some noise, it's not the time to cut back. In fact, that's EXACTLY the time when you are willing to take a small $M payout for a season or two to augment that team for a chance to win. And let's be honest, when a billionaire ownership owns a sports team, I'd bet...for the most part...that any income derived from that sports team doesn't even belong in the top 20 of their yearly income portfolio. So it's actually the appropriate time to "settle" for maybe a $12M profit that year. I mean, if you really don't care about the future value of your investment and really don't care to see them win and "go for it" once in a while, then why on earth do you even own the organization?

And that's where I have my questions and issues. 

Now, if the Twins were to actually open their books...and it will never happen...and actually show that their team income is smaller than many speculate, and their total outlay is larger than many speculate, and they really only can afford a $130M budget to break even or bring in a small profit, I'm OK with that. But with all the unknowns involved, that's where a lot of "spirited debate" takes place. 

I'm not an apologist for the Twins ownership in any way. But I do have some reservations in regard to cost cutting when maybe a little less profit earned should be the way to go.

It's going to get a whole lot crazier across MLB before all is said and done the next few years.

1 hour ago, DocBauer said:

Tremendous post, and an absolutely fresh and original idea in how to examine payroll outlay for a team. Since only 2 teams in all of MLB...Atlanta and Toronto maybe?...are required to actually make public what their actual income is for a given season, speculation is all we can work with. But the reporting of payrolls IS something written in ink that can be verified. And attendance IS something written in ink that can be verified. 

I have to admit, I am surprised the Twins were that high on your list in $ per person in attendance. 

I am not a Pohlad family/ownership basher. I actually think the Twins have a pretty good ownership situation, and that was really proven to me during Covid when they were one of the very first teams to pay all of their minor leaguers, and all of their staff. A raise in payroll has been pretty consistent that past decade, and they've usually sat right at the median of league wise spending. 

I'm glad you brought up the Padres. But I'd also include the Rangers in an example of how extreme shifts are taking place on the front of MLB incomes. The Padres, if I remember right, still had an agreement with Bally and their parent company but Bally just pulled out. The Rangers were supposed to be paid something like $100M per season through 2032. They are now receiving approximately 85% of their previous expected number for 2024 on a 1yr deal that expires once the season is done. Don't think they went on a huge spending spree the past few years without counting on that $100M per season being there? Now what happens to them next offseason? They simply aren't going to find a new TV or streaming deal that's going to come close are they? Same with the Padres this season, under the MLB TV umbrella. 

Where I DO HAVE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS with the Pohlad's is their profitability from the Twins. By that, let's assume a $300M income on average. That's based on nothing but educated guesses by other sources, but I use it as a reasonably sound starting point. So 50-52% of income goes to payroll. OK, so $156 is gone and accounted for, leaving the organization $144M to run everything else from minor leaguers and personnel, to ML personnel and the FO itself, to scouts, to advertising, to upgrades at Target Field, to travel-food-lodging expenses for the ML team. And we could go on and on and on. The problem is, we have no real idea how large of a final tab those kinds of things add up to. But ONLY for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, let's just say ALL of running the actual organization comes up to $110M. That would leave the Pohlad's a profit of $34M on the season in this example. I've never believed a business owner, including one who owns a sports franchise, should be expected to run their business in the red, or simply break even and make ZERO profit on a yearly basis.

HOWEVER, when you have a quality team that is competitive, right on the precipice of maybe making some noise, it's not the time to cut back. In fact, that's EXACTLY the time when you are willing to take a small $M payout for a season or two to augment that team for a chance to win. And let's be honest, when a billionaire ownership owns a sports team, I'd bet...for the most part...that any income derived from that sports team doesn't even belong in the top 20 of their yearly income portfolio. So it's actually the appropriate time to "settle" for maybe a $12M profit that year. I mean, if you really don't care about the future value of your investment and really don't care to see them win and "go for it" once in a while, then why on earth do you even own the organization?

And that's where I have my questions and issues. 

Now, if the Twins were to actually open their books...and it will never happen...and actually show that their team income is smaller than many speculate, and their total outlay is larger than many speculate, and they really only can afford a $130M budget to break even or bring in a small profit, I'm OK with that. But with all the unknowns involved, that's where a lot of "spirited debate" takes place. 

I'm not an apologist for the Twins ownership in any way. But I do have some reservations in regard to cost cutting when maybe a little less profit earned should be the way to go.

It's going to get a whole lot crazier across MLB before all is said and done the next few years.

You are so correct with your statement.  There are actually 2 numbers I'd love to see on their financial statements.  Naturally, profitability is one of them.  The other number is ownership compensation.  As a corporation, the salaries given out to stockholders (The Pohlad Family) are deductible expenses.  Naturally that income must be claimed and taxes withheld, but individuals who have ownership of the company's stock are allowed compensation if they play an active role in the business.  Since their salary becomes a business expense, the bottom line (profit) could be masked by taking unusually high wages.  To get an accurate view of the business' profitability knowing the bottom line profit and owner's compensation is the key.

So, after a very solid season in 2023, with Playoff games won (3of6) and attendance at 1,974,000 things should be looking up - right?

I took your $160M payroll for ‘23 and divided by attendance and the spend per fan would have been $81. You said $78, which means payroll was actually where I thought (and where TD readers have seen it for 6-10 months - in the $154M area). I think all of your payroll totals are skewed a bit but whatever.

Is it realistic that ticket prices go up from an average of $33.89 each to say, $34.50 in ‘24? $.61 each? Is it realistic that attendance goes up to 2.1 million in ‘24?……..126,000 more tickets sold over 81 games - reasonable?

$33.89 x 1,974,000 = $66,899,000 is 2023

$:34.50 x 2,100,000 = $72,450,000 is 2024

This, to me, seems like reasonable forecasting of sales.  NET GAIN of revenue at $5,551,000.

The TWINS are spending $4M less than 2021 & $12M less than 2022……$30M less than last years inflated spend. No problem with “right sizing” but there has to be some basis for the reduction.

$7M less TV $$$ - $5.55M more in ticket sales - oh, and this means concessions and merchandise will be up. Oh, and then there’s inflation on the other sales items as well.

Going backward $10-$15M I may have been OK with - the $122M total is not a business spending reasonably to progress its success.

If the Twins weren't paying Big Bucks for Correa and Buxton, their team salary would be even lower.

The Twins are doing just fine, prepping for future increases, ways to keep current players perhaps.