Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Twins Payrolls Since 1988 vs. MLB (Cheap Pohalds?)


Twins Video

I don't know how many times I've seen the Twins' ownership all lumped together as a singular, static entity. Similar to the entity known as "Falvine" or that childhood couple who got the blended name like Nateiffer or whatever. The perceived sins of the father infect the rest of the family by association like the way people go after the blood relations of presidents. The arguments surround the Twins being owned by misers who hurt the team's chance of being successful because they won't pay competitive salaries. Inconceivably large numbers get thrown around and ranks are used to provide a convenient reference furthering the commenter's opinion. But, just how does the Twins' historical payroll stack up in a visual way? A way which can better illustrate at a glance how competitive they've been. Is Carl the same as Jim? Are the Twins the franchise today as they were 20 years ago?

What does 16th or 19th rank look like? See for yourself how the Twins stack up historically, all the way back to 1988 based on data from The Baseball Cube. 2024 data comes from Spotrac so the methodology might be a bit different. You can see some major trends and how baseball competition levels were affected by changes to the CBA and television, etc. Up until about 1990, the differences from the haves to the have nots wasn't so huge. The Twins were right in the thick of things as one of the upper payroll teams. A paradigm shift occurred and baseball competition levels would never be the same. Another shift in the late 90s changed the landscape yet again. Suddenly, the gap became massive, and Carl Pohlad opted for the bare minimum cost philosophy as the Twins secured the lowest payrolls in MLB. Contraction didn't happen, and Twins payrolls rose to about the bottom of the 3rd quartile of teams until Target Field. When Target Field opened, Carl Pohlad was dead with his son, Jim, having taken over. Jim pushed payroll up a full bracket and more closely followed the bottom of the 2nd quartile of teams. Right about dead mid market combined from 2010-2022, but it appears there's another shift going on.

mlbpayrollgraph.jpg.ac03102a7576a05b521eded77f109788.jpg

 

Payrolls and revenues are trending up, and the Pohlad family appear to be more committed to trend back to the days of their father, and the Metrodome as attendance falters. Carl Pohlad was a miser. While generous from a charitable standpoint, and an honorable man with multiple purple hearts, a bronze star with clusters and a fantastic personal reputation amongst the people who knew him, he did not accept losses from businesses, and the Twins were a business to him. Carl's first love was football, and he actively attempted to purchase a controlling interest in the Minnesota Vikings, but was rebuffed because he owned a controlling interest in the Twins already. I have to wonder if Jim is getting miserly as he ages? Frustration with attendance and an inability to get a new stadium built led Carl to cut the payroll down to the bottom of the barrel and field more than a handful of terrible, non-competitive teams while threatening to sell the team to a party who would move the franchise out of state or even potentially contract the team entirely. This new philosophy for the Twins' ownership on the back of frustration with attendance potentially signals it's time for the Pohlads to sell the team to an owner with better business sense because Twins revenue shouldn't be as low as it is. Poorly negotiated TV deals, poor marketing and a lack of accountability at the head of the organization have allowed ownership to assume revenues are fixed so costs must be cut rather than understanding how to expand revenues to keep the team competitive with mid-market teams.

The Pohlads also appear to lack understanding of how team payrolls work. Joe Pohlad pointed to the Orioles as an example, but Baltimore has fielded a payroll higher than the Twins in 21 of the past 37 seasons (57%) including 3 seasons above the maximum payroll in Twins' history despite a much smaller market than Minneapolis. The Orioles recently employed the tank Astros philosophy of the 2010s initiating a total burn down of their roster with the willingness to field the worst teams in baseball year in and out while undertaking a massive rebuild. Now in a competitive window, Baltimore is once again expanding their payroll rapidly, and I expect they'll surpass the Twins once again next season. Baltimore would never have burned down a team in their prime competitive window.

This new (old) Pohlad philosophy is not only a poor look, it's a disservice to the fans, and the taxpayers who built Target Field with the expectation ownership would keep their end of the bargain and fund the team appropriately. It reeks of panic, frustration, poor business management, and dysfunction. If this is what the Pohlads bring to the table now, it's best to find fresh new ownership with a better philosophy.

19 Comments


Recommended Comments

Karbo

Posted

Be careful what you wish for. Another billionaire could swoop in and move the team to another location. I am disappointed in the payroll situation also, but we have some very good young players (with more on the way) playing for near MLB minimum. That should help. Hopefully by the time they start getting richer, the TV contracts will improve, and attendance will go up! That's the optimist side of me talking anyway.

bean5302

Posted

4 hours ago, Karbo said:

Be careful what you wish for. Another billionaire could swoop in and move the team to another location. I am disappointed in the payroll situation also, but we have some very good young players (with more on the way) playing for near MLB minimum. That should help. Hopefully by the time they start getting richer, the TV contracts will improve, and attendance will go up! That's the optimist side of me talking anyway.

Moving is an idle threat. Target Field is a great stadium and relatively new, attendance has been lower recently, but the team is still no where near the rock bottom, and the Twins are only 1/2 way through a 30 year lease which doesn't expire until 2040.

srlarson

Posted

twins are a playoff team but not a contender for a title...but lots of young guys up and coming.....get the TV situation figured out.....then spend a little more...they will never be a player for top end guys.....but build with solid vets.... and up and coming guys.....The Pohlads have made their money on this team (pd 44 million for it...now almost 2 billion)....so should spend mid road every year....and be competitive....but not serious WS contenders......it's what mid market teams do....

Brandon

Posted

The big difference between the Orioles in a smaller market and the Twins is all of the sports teams we have here.  Baltimore has an NFL and MLB team.  I can’t think of an NBA or NHL or college or WNBA or minor league team.  The Twin Cities has all of them which eats into available revenue.  San Diego payroll went up after the Chargers left town.  Just consider the other factors when comparing markets.  

bean5302

Posted

15 hours ago, Brandon said:

The big difference between the Orioles in a smaller market and the Twins is all of the sports teams we have here.  Baltimore has an NFL and MLB team.  I can’t think of an NBA or NHL or college or WNBA or minor league team.  The Twin Cities has all of them which eats into available revenue.  San Diego payroll went up after the Chargers left town.  Just consider the other factors when comparing markets.  

Not really. Baltimore's area overlaps other metro areas like Washington D.C. which is only 30min away which adds the Nationals, Capitals, and Wizards. So if you wanted to do a factor analysis like that, the Twins have a lot less competition, and a larger metro area population, and larger MLB home territory from which to draw.

dxpavelka

Posted

On 8/3/2024 at 12:27 PM, bean5302 said:

Moving is an idle threat. Target Field is a great stadium and relatively new, attendance has been lower recently, but the team is still no where near the rock bottom, and the Twins are only 1/2 way through a 30 year lease which doesn't expire until 2040.

2040 will be here before you know it

 

LambchoP

Posted

Remember when ownership said if we approved the new stadium then in return they would raise payroll and spend more on the team and players lol? It's like they think since they went big and signed Correa, they're in the clear, and don't have to spend big again for another ten years:(

jorgenswest

Posted

On 8/8/2024 at 11:17 AM, bean5302 said:

Not really. Baltimore's area overlaps other metro areas like Washington D.C. which is only 30min away which adds the Nationals, Capitals, and Wizards. So if you wanted to do a factor analysis like that, the Twins have a lot less competition, and a larger metro area population, and larger MLB home territory from which to draw.

Wouldn’t the Baltimore/Washington DC metro area be much larger? 

bean5302

Posted

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Wouldn’t the Baltimore/Washington DC metro area be much larger? 

D.C. is much bigger than Baltimore. Way bigger than the Twin Cities metro, too. The Nationals really ate into Baltimore's potential fan base. Even Philadelphia pulls from not too far from Baltimore, which is just 100mi away. The Pirates nip at the Orioles' fanbase to the NW.

From an MLB perspective, Baltimore has been a pretty small market.
https://www.vividseats.com/blog/most-popular-mlb-teams-by-state-county/map

DocBauer

Posted

Just a few thoughts and opinions I have:

1] Payroll hasn't really been a major issue until this season. The Twins are a mid market team, but have been consistently in the 18-15 range for several years until 2024, including a record high in 2023 of around $157M depending on who's final numbers you want to look at. In other words, the payroll has been about right for where they rank as a market.

2] I don't believe the FO/ownership...whoever we want to blame specifically...has done a great job with marketing. I know it's a Vikings town first and foremost, but the Twins have been pretty good since the new FO took over. But limitations by their past/current TV deal handcuffed them in growth potential. Nobody seems to have an eye on the future and growth potential. If St Peter is responsible, then he needs to move on from future deals as he just doesn't understand the changes and new opportunities that are available for growth.

3] Due to point #2, I believe ownership did a panic solution in cutting payroll for 2024 due to the uncertainty of the TV deal. By the time the courts helped settle the TV deal for this year...still very good despite a lower $ amount...it was too late to go out and actually spend the $ coming in for anyone that made sense.

3] I don't believe the "panic" I mentioned by ownership is without some logic. Within the next couple of years, most all teams are going to have expiring TV deals that are going to greatly affect team incomes and payroll. I'm not a Rangers fan, but their expiring deal is/was something like $20-30M MORE than the Twins. But it was SUPPOSED to go through something like 2030 or longer. And they spent something like half a billion on just TWO players before all this happened.

4] MLB is going to have to get really smart, really quick, and circle the wagons to figure out how to find $, and how to share it equitablly enough to make things work across the league, versus some teams like the Yankees and Dodgers and a few others that still have a cash cow.

Think about the Diamondbacks for a moment. I don't even have to look at what their payroll is, or their previous TV deal that disappeared, to realize they might be in danger. Consider the Phoenix metro plex area has a population of 4.7+ million. If only 50% of the population has cable/satellite TV, with only a $5 surcharge on the cable bill for sports programming, that's $23.5M at a minimum going to sports teams.

I'm just using accepted fees and a simple subscriber number for calculations.

The Minneapolis/St Paul metro population is a little over 3 million. Using the same calculations, they would have roughly $15M at a minimum going to sports teams.

Again, I'm using 50% and accepted fees...perhaps a $1 or $2 low...to make an arguement/statement here.

Diamond Sports, the parent company of Bally, was paying the Twins around $55M. The numbers simply don't match. Especially with cords being cut and so much of the population going to streaming content.

And I'm using calculations based on POPULATION, NOT households!

The Diamondbacks, again as comparison, offered a $99 whole season package to fans to watch games this season under the MLB umbrella.

Based on that formula, the Twins would need 550,000 HOUSEHOLDS in 2025 to subscribe in order for them to match the $55M they were previously receiving from Diamond/Bally pre 2024.

Yes, MLB receives NATIONAL $. But it's still a sport dependent on local contracts vs the NFL that is mostly national $ based on the number of games played. I.E. NOBODY in MOST cities can/will devote TV time 162 games a season vs 17.

I am NOT excusing Twins ownership, or ANY ownership from investing in their teams. There is still national $ involved, gate receipts, merchandising, parking, food and drink, etc. I am NOT saying ownership of ANY franchise doesn't deserve to net a few $M from their franchise. BUT:

A] As a public, there are only 2 teams that must report their Financials, we really have no idea EXACTLY what each team makes $. Actually INVESTING $ in your team should only increase its total value over time. And I'm pretty sure owning a sports team involves write offs, tax incentives, additional community perks, and additional local investments/builds that bring in additional perks and income.

B] If you're a BILLIONAIRE ownership...and you pretty much have to be...if you're really counting on actual income from your sports team to "allow" you to live as you want, you must be bad at business.

C] Owning a sports franchise is not only a responsibility/trust in the community that you are supposedly a part of, but it should be FUN to own. Regardless of points 1 and 2, and the HUGE % of worth/value of growth of your original investment, if owning said franchise isn't FUN for you, then CASH OUT for $2B and let someone else in!

I am NOT picking on the Pohlads here. But I am making, what I believe to be, salient points about MLB and what is going to be an absolute CLUSTER F over the next few years financially for the league.

Cord cutting, streaming options, and the public de-valueing of traditional TV is VERY REAL. At some point, maybe 4 or 5 years from now, if not sooner, even the Yankees and Dodgers and the such are going to see mass changes. 

Twins ownership might have "paniced" in 2024. But the changes are very real. They're here, and they're still coming. 

The KC market is about 1.7M, less than the Twin Cities. I don't know their exact TV deal, but I know they are part of the Bally network currently. If we suddenly see them surpass the Twins in yearly payroll, we will know something is seriously amiss.

But right now, I'm seeing a really strange market shift begining this next offseason. MLB is in a serious crunch time right now, IMO.

Morland

Posted

Owning a sports team is not a regular business. Regular businesses would love to have their valuation skyrocket as much as sports franchises have in the last few decades. IMO, saying that a sports team has to make a standard yearly profit (5%-25%) depending on industry you're in, is just greedy. You make your money owning a sports team by the increase in valuation, either when you sell it or as collateral for loans. Yes, the Twins are mid-market and yes, they can't be expected to match the Dodgers or Yankees in payroll. And yes, local TV revenue should be shared to a greater extent in MLB than it currently is. None of those are proper excuses for failing to invest in the Twins, especially when the team is clearly entering an up cycle that should last for the rest of the decade at a minimum.

The comparison that a previous commenter made with Kansas City is apt. KC is a smaller market than the Twin Cities. Yet, they saw that their team was beginning an upswing and they invested this winter in pitching. They didn't target the top pitchers but signed several mid-rotation starters, a move which probably didn't excite too many of their fans. They've been rewarded with a career year by one of the starters they signed and are now in contention for the playoffs. There's little reason why the Twins could not pursue a similar strategy.

 

Mortimerkenny21

Posted

On 8/8/2024 at 10:58 PM, dxpavelka said:

2040 will be here before you know it

 

In the year 2525...will the Twins still be alive?!?!

old nurse

Posted

17 hours ago, Morland said:

Owning a sports team is not a regular business. Regular businesses would love to have their valuation skyrocket as much as sports franchises have in the last few decades. IMO, saying that a sports team has to make a standard yearly profit (5%-25%) depending on industry you're in, is just greedy. You make your money owning a sports team by the increase in valuation, either when you sell it or as collateral for loans. Yes, the Twins are mid-market and yes, they can't be expected to match the Dodgers or Yankees in payroll. And yes, local TV revenue should be shared to a greater extent in MLB than it currently is. None of those are proper excuses for failing to invest in the Twins, especially when the team is clearly entering an up cycle that should last for the rest of the decade at a minimum.

The comparison that a previous commenter made with Kansas City is apt. KC is a smaller market than the Twin Cities. Yet, they saw that their team was beginning an upswing and they invested this winter in pitching. They didn't target the top pitchers but signed several mid-rotation starters, a move which probably didn't excite too many of their fans. They've been rewarded with a career year by one of the starters they signed and are now in contention for the playoffs. There's little reason why the Twins could not pursue a similar strategy.

 

There are fewer companies owning refineries than baseball teams. Most of the processed food is made by 5 companies. What is a normal business that has on average over 300 million in revenue?

dxpavelka

Posted

20 hours ago, Mortimerkenny21 said:

In the year 2525...will the Twins still be alive?!?!

does anybody really know what time it is

Schmoeman5

Posted

On 8/13/2024 at 10:43 AM, Mortimerkenny21 said:

In the year 2525...will the Twins still be alive?!?!

I still want to know why the year 7510 and 8510 in that song? I guess Zager and Evans liked to change it up.

Schmoeman5

Posted

On 8/14/2024 at 7:03 AM, dxpavelka said:

does anybody really know what time it is

Does anyone care? 

Sjoski

Posted

Does anyone care?

Great question. Over the years I've traveled to see the Twins on the road in several cities.....I use to attend an average of 20 games a year here at home. Now I refuse to support the Twins....haven't been to Target Field in 5 years.   I am committed to the Twins as they are to putting a competitive team on the field. 
 

USAFChief

Posted

16 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I still want to know why the year 7510 and 8510 in that song? I guess Zager and Evans liked to change it up.

Between the two of them they ran out of rhymes for "five." 

By "then" they just shook their "head."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...