BPro: Twins Are Not A "Small Market" Team

[ThejacKmp]

 

I would also add that from the mid 90s (time of baseball strike) until the recent explosion of tv contracts (about the time of Target Field), baseball revenues was driven primarily from stadiums. In that sense, the Twins were a small market team in the Metrodome, with the need for a new stadium to no longer be.

 

And Pohlad saying he didn't want to lose money on the team strikes me as a reasonable position for an owner to take.

 

See this is where I have three issues:

(1) All we have to go with is the Pohlad's word. The Pohlads have never opened their books - they said they were losing money and therefore they needed a stadium. We never had a way to confirm this (and this is true all over baseball, not just with the Pohlads) because they never had to prove it since they’re a private company. We just took them at their word and bought them a new stadium. Anyone who trusts Carl Pohlad’s word that the Twins were losing money should investigate how Carl made the money in the first place - foreclosing on farmers during the Great Depression. Or look at his tax fraud case, where he claimed the Twins were only worth $24 million - the IRS vehemently disagreed. This is a guy who never met a book he couldn't cook; a cold hearted businessman in every sense of the word.

(2) I also don't get the "We need to make money on the Twins" party line the Pohlad’s (and other owners) have spouted for years. A sports franchise is a luxury item akin to a rare sports car or a sweet mansion – it’s not about how much money it makes you or whether it makes a profit, it's about the status symbol of owning it, the business deals that come along because you have access to sports glory. The Pohdads have tons of other businesses and sources of wealth, the Twins’ profits are a drop in the ocean. Run the darn thing as a nonprofit ya cheapskates.

(3) Even if you trust the Pohlads that they aren't making money and even if you agree that a sports team isn't a luxury item and should make a healthy profit like any business, it's still B.S. The real value in sports franchises is in the appreciation of the asset. It’s the equivalent of complaining that the state needs to build you a new climate-controlled building to house all of the art in your private art museum because people aren't paying enough to come look at it and you're losing money on maintenance. Yeah, maybe you're losing money every year (if we take you at your word) but the value of that art is going up through the roof. Smilin' Carl paid $44 million for the Twins in 1984 - adjusted for inflation that is $91.25 million. The Twins are currently value at $895 million and you can bet that they would fetch a good bit more with the bull market for sports franchises globally (see the Bucks, Milwaukee). Even if Carl had run the team at a $20 million loss every year he owned it, he'd still have been $200 million ahead. And there's no way he ran it at a loss. These owners always claim they’re losing money but none of them are looking to sell a franchise. And when they do (Clippers, Bucks, Dodgers) the money involved always blows the supposed value out of the water.

 

---------

This is why I've come up with the best solution. Sports are a private monopoly propped up by the government allowing them to squash competition – the NFL is a nonprofit for pete’s sake.  Now I'm a pretty solid libertarian, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I have no love of socialism - I teach high school and my favorite lesson all year is when I show the kids why socialism doesn’t work using their lunch program. They eat it up, pardon the pun. But I’ll stand with socialism on one point - we should nationalize the crap out of all professional sports so the taxpayers own them.

 

We won’t steal them; we’ll pay fair market value. No one is getting robbed, the rich old white men can go back to counting their money. But that way, we can open the books and see what’s going on. If a stadium is really needed to make the thing more profitable, the taxpayers can make a decision to build one and make sure that they reap the rewards. You could support schools, roads and college education with profits from pro teams just like you do with taxes on alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. If an area doesn’t feel like supporting the team anymore or can’t make money, they can sell it to Los Angeles or London or wherever and the taxpayers can reap the massive windfall of the constantly appreciating value of a sports franchise.

 

The point is that we have no concept of how the money works in baseball because it’s a truly unique American industry – private with closed books but massive amounts of public assistance. This isn’t a fair game and it’s being run at the expense of fans and taxpayers. It’s time to pull the curtains back on the Wizard and take control ourselves. There’s no reason for 100 old white dudes to take in all of this money, shifting the risk associated with stadium construction onto the taxpayers. Let’s nationalize pro sports.

[REPETE]

 

I don't think that's true at all. Every professional sports team in every sport has seen their franchise value skyrocket over the past few decades. Many of those teams lost money over short periods of time. Some have even lost money over long periods of time.

 

We live in a world where American soccer franchises are valued at $150m+.

 

Owning a sports franchise has been very lucrative for many years.

not only does the value rise, but I believe many are using sports teams as tax write-offs, so even when the team loses money, it generates more revenue in other avenues for the owners.

 

[ThejacKmp]

 

Yep, though it's fair to point out that value is only seen if the team is sold. If the Pohlads hang on to the Twins forever, their "profit" is zero (assuming they spend every dollar they acquire in revenue).

 

Nope. Not true. The Pohlad’s have gained an insane profit on the Twins. If I owned my house free and clear (I wish) I wouldn’t have that $300K or whatever. But I would be able to draw on the value of that property in the form of a mortgage or a loan. Thus, the immense appreciation of the Twins has turned into a large tangible benefit for the Pohlads. Yeah the book isn’t closed on the transaction but it’s just not true from an accounting sense to say that there has not been a profit. Value is value and not all wealth comes in the form of cash.

[drjim]

 

See this is where I have three issues:

(1) All we have to go with is the Pohlad's word. The Pohlads have never opened their books - they said they were losing money and therefore they needed a stadium. We never had a way to confirm this (and this is true all over baseball, not just with the Pohlads) because they never had to prove it since they’re a private company. We just took them at their word and bought them a new stadium. Anyone who trusts Carl Pohlad’s word that the Twins were losing money should investigate how Carl made the money in the first place - foreclosing on farmers during the Great Depression. Or look at his tax fraud case, where he claimed the Twins were only worth $24 million - the IRS vehemently disagreed. This is a guy who never met a book he couldn't cook; a cold hearted businessman in every sense of the word.

(2) I also don't get the "We need to make money on the Twins" party line the Pohlad’s (and other owners) have spouted for years. A sports franchise is a luxury item akin to a rare sports car or a sweet mansion – it’s not about how much money it makes you or whether it makes a profit, it's about the status symbol of owning it, the business deals that come along because you have access to sports glory. The Pohdads have tons of other businesses and sources of wealth, the Twins’ profits are a drop in the ocean. Run the darn thing as a nonprofit ya cheapskates.

(3) Even if you trust the Pohlads that they aren't making money and even if you agree that a sports team isn't a luxury item and should make a healthy profit like any business, it's still B.S. The real value in sports franchises is in the appreciation of the asset. It’s the equivalent of complaining that the state needs to build you a new climate-controlled building to house all of the art in your private art museum because people aren't paying enough to come look at it and you're losing money on maintenance. Yeah, maybe you're losing money every year (if we take you at your word) but the value of that art is going up through the roof. Smilin' Carl paid $44 million for the Twins in 1984 - adjusted for inflation that is $91.25 million. The Twins are currently value at $895 million and you can bet that they would fetch a good bit more with the bull market for sports franchises globally (see the Bucks, Milwaukee). Even if Carl had run the team at a $20 million loss every year he owned it, he'd still have been $200 million ahead. And there's no way he ran it at a loss. These owners always claim they’re losing money but none of them are looking to sell a franchise. And when they do (Clippers, Bucks, Dodgers) the money involved always blows the supposed value out of the water.

 

---------

This is why I've come up with the best solution. Sports are a private monopoly propped up by the government allowing them to squash competition – the NFL is a nonprofit for pete’s sake.  Now I'm a pretty solid libertarian, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I have no love of socialism - I teach high school and my favorite lesson all year is when I show the kids why socialism doesn’t work using their lunch program. They eat it up, pardon the pun. But I’ll stand with socialism on one point - we should nationalize the crap out of all professional sports so the taxpayers own them.

 

We won’t steal them; we’ll pay fair market value. No one is getting robbed, the rich old white men can go back to counting their money. But that way, we can open the books and see what’s going on. If a stadium is really needed to make the thing more profitable, the taxpayers can make a decision to build one and make sure that they reap the rewards. You could support schools, roads and college education with profits from pro teams just like you do with taxes on alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. If an area doesn’t feel like supporting the team anymore or can’t make money, they can sell it to Los Angeles or London or wherever and the taxpayers can reap the massive windfall of the constantly appreciating value of a sports franchise.

 

The point is that we have no concept of how the money works in baseball because it’s a truly unique American industry – private with closed books but massive amounts of public assistance. This isn’t a fair game and it’s being run at the expense of fans and taxpayers. It’s time to pull the curtains back on the Wizard and take control ourselves. There’s no reason for 100 old white dudes to take in all of this money, shifting the risk associated with stadium construction onto the taxpayers. Let’s nationalize pro sports.

 

1. I don't believe Pohlad ever lost money, would never claim otherwise - especially since pubically stated he wanted to run the team in such a way that wouldn't lose money. And I don't even think they said they were losing money, only that without new revenue they couldn't compete (which was also proven false in the aughts).

 

Though I absolutely believe pre-Target Field they were a "small market" team in the sense that they were in the bottom 5 of revenue.

 

2. I don't necessary disagree, but also not my money.

 

3. Again, not my money.

 

And Im not sure on the solution you offered, nothing would gum up an industry more than putting under public control.

[Vanimal46]

Yeah making sports teams under public control would be a disaster. When everyone has a different agenda on how to operate a team, nothing would get accomplished. You'll have your people on the far left wanting to spend every cent, and people on the far right wanting to rake in the profits. 

What it all boils down to is it sucks that our favorite team is under the ownership of a business man, not a sports fan. I'd love for one day to root for a team with an owner like Mark Cuban, Mike Ilitch, Steinbrenner, etc. where money is no object to putting together a winning team. In the mean time, this is what we're stuck with. A family with old money, but operates the sports team in a very conservative nature. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That is a pretty bad example in my opinion.  Very few individual stocks tend to rise every single year like a sports team.  Netflix is much more likely to go down this year than the Twins

 

In fact, the value was up 15% from 2007 to 2009.  Recession proof.

Oh sure, I wasn't saying the valuation of the two was in lock step, merely pointing out that valuation doesn't mean much until you cash out. It helps with loan leveraging and a few other things but it's not like the Pohlads have cash in pocket because the Twins are now worth $900m.

 

And I can't imagine asset leveraging is a terribly big deal to the Pohlad family, which was worth billions of dollars before the Twins came into the picture. They already have loads of assets and businesses from which to draw.

[old nurse]

 

They have only gone "big" once on one of their own guys (Mauer) every other top guy they developed they have let walk away: Santana, Morneau, Hunter, etc

Morneau's contract was not considered big at the time?  Cuddyer's 3/24 was a better contract than almost all of the free agent OF or 1B contracts that year. Cuddyer was not Texiera or Many Ramirez. He could be close to Ibanez and Bradley (who imploded with the contract) and thus got close to their money.

[drjim]

 

Yeah making sports teams under public control would be a disaster. When everyone has a different agenda on how to operate a team, nothing would get accomplished. You'll have your people on the far left wanting to spend every cent, and people on the far right wanting to rake in the profits. 

What it all boils down to is it sucks that our favorite team is under the ownership of a business man, not a sports fan. I'd love for one day to root for a team with an owner like Mark Cuban, Mike Ilitch, Steinbrenner, etc. where money is no object to putting together a winning team. In the mean time, this is what we're stuck with. A family with old money, but operates the sports team in a very conservative nature. 

 

While I generally agree with the second point, it's a mixed bag. You mention a few notable exceptions, but I think I prefer an owner that is a little conservative but sets a budget and stays out of the way to the type that would meddle all the time, especially if they aren't giving a massive payroll.

 

In this way, and in baseball the Pohlads are more typical than outlier. The other thing the Pohlads bring to the table is uncommon loyalty, which does bring stability but is balanced out by the same people keeping the same positions, perhaps longer than they should, and making it difficult for many new ideas to penetrate, especially initially.

[USAFChief]

 

  

 

  Hopefully they'll be able to work out a TV deal that will put them around where the Astros are at $80-85 million, rather than their current $25-30 million. Adding another $50 million in local TV revenue means another $25 million in payroll at 50%... that's pretty meaningful.

This is the EXACT thing that really annoys me.  

 

The Twins claimed, under the Metrodome model, that they needed 45-50 percent of revenue to meet other expenses and still generate a moderate profit.  I bought that line.  $130M in revenue, $65M to big payroll, leaving ~$65M to cover other costs.

 

But they move into TF, generate another ~$100M in revenue, and they STILL need 50 percent to cover other expenses??  Why?

 

And now, if they suddenly got another $50M in TV money, only 50 percent of that is available for player payroll?

 

Why??

 

Where would the other $25M go?  Expenses didn't change ONE CENT.

 

That's just $25M more going into ownership's pocket.

 

I can't quite grasp why people are OK with that.

 

 

[old nurse]

By public data in different articles the Twins  television contract at 29 million per year is better than Oakland, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Less than but near the Brewers and Cleveland.  In terms od television money they are small market.  When they are winning and Target Field is party central, they are mid market in terms of stadium revenue.

[drjim]

 

This is the EXACT thing that really annoys me.  

 

The Twins claimed, under the Metrodome model, that they needed 45-50 percent of revenue to meet other expenses and still generate a moderate profit.  I bought that line.  $130M in revenue, $65M to big payroll, leaving ~$65M to cover other costs.

 

But they move into TF, generate another ~$100M in revenue, and they STILL need 50 percent to cover other expenses??  Why?

 

And now, if they suddenly got another $50M in TV money, only 50 percent of that is available for player payroll?

 

Why??

 

Where would the other $25M go?  Expenses didn't change ONE CENT.

 

That's just $25M more going into ownership's pocket.

 

I can't quite grasp why people are OK with that.

 

You don't expenses changed from the Metrodome to Target Field? You aren't counting documented changes to the Dominican Academy and the Ft. Myers complex? Increased International and draft expenses?

 

Saying nothing has changed and it all goes in the owner's pocket is as nonsensical as blindly accepting the 50% number imo.

[Vanimal46]

I wasn't able to find this info before leaving the office, but how many more millions in TV revenue are the Diamondbacks getting with their new TV deal compared to their old deal?

 

And what percentage of that new TV revenue was used on signing new players this offseason?

[USAFChief]

 

You don't expenses changed from the Metrodome to Target Field? You aren't counting documented changes to the Dominican Academy and the Ft. Myers complex? Increased International and draft expenses?

 

Saying nothing has changed and it all goes in the owner's pocket is as nonsensical as blindly accepting the 50% number imo.

What documented changes to the Dominican Academy?  $50M worth?  

 

The Ft Myers complex was a one time expense, largely funded by Lee County.

 

They've always had international and draft expenses...and to the best of my knowledge, the Twins have been extra careful NOT to spend more than MLB allowances in both of those areas.  If they were pumping an extra $40 into international signings every other year, that would account for some of the money.  They're not.

 

And none of those have a single thing to do with a sudden increase of $50M in TV money, anyway, were that to happen tomorrow.

 

There may be minor expense differences in running TF as opposed to the dome.  But there can be no possible benign explanation for needing another $50-70M.

 

Not to mention, currently and for at least the last several years, aren't even living up to the "50-55 percent to big league payroll" promise.  

[theBOMisthebomb]

It sure would be nice if baseball implemented a true revenue sharing abd salary cap system similar to the NFL. Then punters like the Twins would have no wiggle room when when they are being criticized.

[DaveW]

 

This is the EXACT thing that really annoys me.  

 

The Twins claimed, under the Metrodome model, that they needed 45-50 percent of revenue to meet other expenses and still generate a moderate profit.  I bought that line.  $130M in revenue, $65M to big payroll, leaving ~$65M to cover other costs.

 

But they move into TF, generate another ~$100M in revenue, and they STILL need 50 percent to cover other expenses??  Why?

 

And now, if they suddenly got another $50M in TV money, only 50 percent of that is available for player payroll?

 

Why??

 

Where would the other $25M go?  Expenses didn't change ONE CENT.

 

That's just $25M more going into ownership's pocket.

 

I can't quite grasp why people are OK with that.

This. Times a lot. While expenses probably change a bit, they don't go up 50% in that scenario not even close, maybe some owners would reinvest 50% of that in BASEBALL OPERATIONS, but the Pohlads? Yeah, I will believe it when I see it.

I don't understand why some people will jump through numerous mental hoops to defend the Pohlads, the Pohlads DO NOT CARE about Minnesota, they DO NOT CARE about the fans, if they cared at all about the fans/state/city they wouldn't have actively worked in secret to contract the team back in 2001 making $150 million in the process, they wouldn't have tried to move the team to North Carolina in the late 90's.  The Pohlads care about money, just like they have since the family made their money foreclosing on families farms during the great depression. Most owners don't care much at all about the fans, the Pohlads are in that category.

Of course this is their right, they own the team/business, they can do what they want with it. I just don't understand how people can just blindly support them and all their (lack) of moves.

[Craig Arko]

Out of curiosity, what's the definition of 'small market?' Isn't anyplace large enough to support professional sports franchises kind of not a small market?

 

Cedar Rapids is a small market.

[Riverbrian]

Seattle gets Portland

Cincinnati gets Columbus and Kentucky

St. Louis gets Memphis

Detroit gets Michigan

Atlanta gets South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi

The Twins get Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota and there isn't a lot of population outside of the Twin Cities in those states. 

 

If you are just looking at metro populations to make the small market case... you are starting from a bad spot. 

[drjim]

 

This. Times a lot. While expenses probably change a bit, they don't go up 50% in that scenario not even close, maybe some owners would reinvest 50% of that in BASEBALL OPERATIONS, but the Pohlads? Yeah, I will believe it when I see it.

I don't understand why some people will jump through numerous mental hoops to defend the Pohlads, the Pohlads DO NOT CARE about Minnesota, they DO NOT CARE about the fans, if they cared at all about the fans/state/city they wouldn't have actively worked in secret to contract the team back in 2001 making $150 million in the process, they wouldn't have tried to move the team to North Carolina in the late 90's.  The Pohlads care about money, just like they have since the family made their money foreclosing on families farms during the great depression. Most owners don't care much at all about the fans, the Pohlads are in that category.

Of course this is their right, they own the team/business, they can do what they want with it. I just don't understand how people can just blindly support them and all their (lack) of moves.

 

For the record I'm not "defending" the Pohlads, I don't care about them one way or the other, and I think their actions around 2000 were self-evidently terrible, but the old man is also dead. Might be time to move on. If the family sold tomorrow I wouldn't be all that moved one way or the other - I would hope for a great owner, hope it wasn't a terrible owner, and likely accept that financially it wouldn't change all that much. Real change, for better or worse, will come in the form of changing the GM.

 

That said, I do think people criticize them quite unfairly now, using inaccurate facts and making assumptions about how they behave that don't jive with the behavior of the vast majority of other owners. Which is their prerogative. I suppose I am amazed at the lengths people will go to bad mouth them at any opportunity, and twist and turn any narrative to fit that criticism. And I would repeat something I say often, if you believe they operate in such an underhanded way, how can you support the franchise? They aren't going anywhere.

[DaveW]

 

For the record I'm not "defending" the Pohlads, I don't care about them one way or the other, and I think their actions around 2000 were self-evidently terrible, but the old man is also dead. Might be time to move on. If the family sold tomorrow I wouldn't be all that moved one way or the other - I would hope for a great owner, hope it wasn't a terrible owner, and likely accept that financially it wouldn't change all that much. Real change, for better or worse, will come in the form of changing the GM.

 

That said, I do think people criticize them quite unfairly now, using inaccurate facts and making assumptions about how they behave that don't jive with the behavior of the vast majority of other owners. Which is their prerogative. I suppose I am amazed at the lengths people will go to bad mouth them at any opportunity, and twist and turn any narrative to fit that criticism. And I would repeat something I say often, if you believe they operate in such an underhanded way, how can you support the franchise? They aren't going anywhere.

I acknowledged that the majority of owners don't care about the fans.

 

As far as supporting the franchise? Give me a break, I support the Twins who are a lot bigger than any one player, one coach or one owner. Ziggy Wilf is a terrible human, as is Adrian Peterson, that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop rooting for/supporting the Vikings. I love my MacBook Air and my iPhone, but that doesn't change my opinion that Steve Jobs was by and large not a good human. You can LIKE something while still finding something you wish was different/improved.

 

The "well if you don't like them, why do you root for them" is a tired argument that has no place in the "real" world.

 

I do agree that real change would come with a change at GM...but the Pohlads have already said that Ryan is the Twins GM until he doesn't want to be it anymore.

[drjim]

 

What documented changes to the Dominican Academy?  $50M worth?  

 

The Ft Myers complex was a one time expense, largely funded by Lee County.

 

They've always had international and draft expenses...and to the best of my knowledge, the Twins have been extra careful NOT to spend more than MLB allowances in both of those areas.  If they were pumping an extra $40 into international signings every other year, that would account for some of the money.  They're not.

 

And none of those have a single thing to do with a sudden increase of $50M in TV money, anyway, were that to happen tomorrow.

 

There may be minor expense differences in running TF as opposed to the dome.  But there can be no possible benign explanation for needing another $50-70M.

 

Not to mention, currently and for at least the last several years, aren't even living up to the "50-55 percent to big league payroll" promise.  

 

Best I can find, operating costs are about $20 mil, which Twins cover completely, vs. Metrodome, which were significantly less and mostly covered by Metropolitan Association. Plus, Twins have covered multiple millions in upgrades each year - which is a use of some of that difference. So, I would say at least $15 mil a year in operating costs just from the stadium increase.

 

Twins put in about $8 mil just for Ft Myers dormitory, plus other undisclosed expenses around the complex not covered in $42 mil received from city. There will certainly be new operating expenses for these upgrades.

 

I can't find numbers on Dominican Academy.

 

While Twins stay at the level prescribed, it is still additional millions each year on talent acquisition.

 

Additional staffing and operating costs throughout the organization I presume.

 

So to say all the money was pocketed since Target Field is indeed inaccurate. Should more be spent on payroll? Probably, and I think we'll see it as young core starts getting paid.

[drjim]

 

I acknowledged that the majority of owners don't care about the fans.

 

As far as supporting the franchise? Give me a break, I support the Twins who are a lot bigger than any one player, one coach or one owner. Ziggy Wilf is a terrible human, as is Adrian Peterson, that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop rooting for/supporting the Vikings. I love my MacBook Air and my iPhone, but that doesn't change my opinion that Steve Jobs was by and large not a good human. You can LIKE something while still finding something you wish was different/improved.

 

The "well if you don't like them, why do you root for them" is a tired argument that has no place in the "real" world.

 

I do agree that real change would come with a change at GM...but the Pohlads have already said that Ryan is the Twins GM until he doesn't want to be it anymore.

 

I didn't exactly say this. You can root for anything you want. I'm just amazed that someone could be as disgusted as you clearly are and still root for them.

[jimmer]

One can be disgusted with how this team is run, from GM to ownership, and still love the team that goes out there and plays on the field.

[DaveW]

 

I didn't exactly say this. You can root for anything you want. I'm just amazed that someone could be as disgusted as you clearly are and still root for them.

This is borderline trolling since you are for some reason making it about me instead of the topic at hand. There is nothing wrong with hoping the teams that you like compete for championships, and wishing that there would be some changes in leadership that would help the team compete for a championship.

 

If I was a Patriots fan and was complaining about Belicheck and ownership today, then perhaps I would see where you could almost make this point. The Twins haven't been to the championship in 25 years, they have only been sorta "close" once in that time. It's not being "disgusted" it's wanting them to do better.

[nicksaviking]

This is the key point that is overlooked by the article. I can't remember where I saw the numbers, but the Twin Cities have a relatively low cable subscriber rate compared to similar sized metro areas, and the big cable contracts are where so much of the money rolls in these days.

 

I've seen people suggest that the Twins are getting screwed or negotiating poorly when they end up with an FSN contract that pays so much less than the big multi-billion dollar deals we're seeing elsewhere, but I assure you that they're getting what they can.

 

In retrospect, as much of an ugly fiasco as it was at the time, this organization would have benefited hugely if Victory Sports 1 would've taken off.

 

I agree that the Twins biggest disadvantage almost certainly lies with the TV revenue. However I dont know that Victory Sports would be a great boon. The team clearly didn't do their homework, they created this station and immediately began demanding ESPN rates from the distributors despite only having one program that anyone would care about, and only during the warm months. How could they not have reached agreements with distributors prior to creating their station? They should have known their demands would not be met.

 

Additionally they must have set the price point only slightly above their expenses because they didn't negotiate lower rates, they just abruptly quit the station and crawled back to FSN. I would think that meant they were going to have to profit almost exclusively on ad revenue. I think the team got in way over their head and even if it caught on, it was bound to be a disaster.

 

But back to the Twins crawling back to FSN; a month into their season they only had something like 10% of their marketing area able to view games. They came to FSN hat in hand, I think there's no way FSN didn't bend them over. I've never heard of a generous TV exec and the Twins had zero leverage. The Twins aren't getting anything close to what other teams currently get. They need this TV deal over ASAP.

[Thrylos]

To tell you the truth, I kinda find that article a bit naive and targeted.    Back right before the 2009 seasons started, I did a 3 part analysis, on the size of the Twins marker compared to others (using more than television ratings like this does, because, you know, if someone watches the Twins from Sturgis, is a tad different than someone watching the Twins from Hennepin and Lake.), Looking at the payroll vis a vis potential market revenue and trying to see how far could that stretch.  That was the season they started with $65M payroll and their record was $71M in 2007.    So, all that analysis resulted in 3 things:

 

The Twins are (were in 2009) 21st as far as market size

They could seriously sustain a $96-127M payroll in that market. (and that was in 2009 dollars)

and how they could go there (highlighting 3 easy things to do)

 

(Well they did 2 out of 3 -ain't bad, and the next season their payroll opened at $97.6M and ended at $103M, but then you know what happened.)

[tobi0040]

According to Forbes. Payroll was 47% of revenue (106 / 227).

 

Operating income was 21M.

 

And the team value increased 48 percent from last year, roughly 300m.

 

It's been a good year, Now give Terry the go ahead for a few minor league contracts to fix this pen.

 

EDIT: this is 2014 data. 2015 is not out yet. Payroll was roughly flat and given the pennant race I am guessing revenue was higher.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/teams/minnesota-twins/

[drjim]

 

This is borderline trolling since you are for some reason making it about me instead of the topic at hand. There is nothing wrong with hoping the teams that you like compete for championships, and wishing that there would be some changes in leadership that would help the team compete for a championship.

 

If I was a Patriots fan and was complaining about Belicheck and ownership today, then perhaps I would see where you could almost make this point. The Twins haven't been to the championship in 25 years, they have only been sorta "close" once in that time. It's not being "disgusted" it's wanting them to do better.

 

This distinction makes sense to me and I agree. It would be madness to accept the clown show of the past 5 years.

 

But you were certainly implying (at least in my mind) much more with how you described the Pohlads previously. It strikes me as difficult to follow a team if I had the same feelings, which is why I said amazing. But to each their own.

[Vanimal46]

I didn't exactly say this. You can root for anything you want. I'm just amazed that someone could be as disgusted as you clearly are and still root for them.

I think you're looking at this situation too much in black and white. Sports fans have an irrational attachment to their favorite teams.

 

If it were so cut and dry like you mention in your last post "If you believe they operate in such an underhanded way, how can you support the franchise?" There would be zero fans left cheering for the Cleveland Browns, Miami Marlins, New York Mets, etc.

 

We all have our reasons for becoming fans of a particular team.. Mine was because of living in MN growing up, and now to stay connected to my home state. Your story may be similar, or different.

 

We chose our team, not the owners; just because some of us would like things to be different shouldn't mean we should stop supporting the team.

[Dr. Evil]

See this is where I have three issues:

(1) All we have to go with is the Pohlad's word. The Pohlads have never opened their books - they said they were losing money and therefore they needed a stadium. We never had a way to confirm this (and this is true all over baseball, not just with the Pohlads) because they never had to prove it since they’re a private company. We just took them at their word and bought them a new stadium. Anyone who trusts Carl Pohlad’s word that the Twins were losing money should investigate how Carl made the money in the first place - foreclosing on farmers during the Great Depression. Or look at his tax fraud case, where he claimed the Twins were only worth $24 million - the IRS vehemently disagreed. This is a guy who never met a book he couldn't cook; a cold hearted businessman in every sense of the word.

(2) I also don't get the "We need to make money on the Twins" party line the Pohlad’s (and other owners) have spouted for years. A sports franchise is a luxury item akin to a rare sports car or a sweet mansion – it’s not about how much money it makes you or whether it makes a profit, it's about the status symbol of owning it, the business deals that come along because you have access to sports glory. The Pohdads have tons of other businesses and sources of wealth, the Twins’ profits are a drop in the ocean. Run the darn thing as a nonprofit ya cheapskates.

(3) Even if you trust the Pohlads that they aren't making money and even if you agree that a sports team isn't a luxury item and should make a healthy profit like any business, it's still B.S. The real value in sports franchises is in the appreciation of the asset. It’s the equivalent of complaining that the state needs to build you a new climate-controlled building to house all of the art in your private art museum because people aren't paying enough to come look at it and you're losing money on maintenance. Yeah, maybe you're losing money every year (if we take you at your word) but the value of that art is going up through the roof. Smilin' Carl paid $44 million for the Twins in 1984 - adjusted for inflation that is $91.25 million. The Twins are currently value at $895 million and you can bet that they would fetch a good bit more with the bull market for sports franchises globally (see the Bucks, Milwaukee). Even if Carl had run the team at a $20 million loss every year he owned it, he'd still have been $200 million ahead. And there's no way he ran it at a loss. These owners always claim they’re losing money but none of them are looking to sell a franchise. And when they do (Clippers, Bucks, Dodgers) the money involved always blows the supposed value out of the water.

 

---------

This is why I've come up with the best solution. Sports are a private monopoly propped up by the government allowing them to squash competition – the NFL is a nonprofit for pete’s sake.  Now I'm a pretty solid libertarian, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I have no love of socialism - I teach high school and my favorite lesson all year is when I show the kids why socialism doesn’t work using their lunch program. They eat it up, pardon the pun. But I’ll stand with socialism on one point - we should nationalize the crap out of all professional sports so the taxpayers own them.

 

We won’t steal them; we’ll pay fair market value. No one is getting robbed, the rich old white men can go back to counting their money. But that way, we can open the books and see what’s going on. If a stadium is really needed to make the thing more profitable, the taxpayers can make a decision to build one and make sure that they reap the rewards. You could support schools, roads and college education with profits from pro teams just like you do with taxes on alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. If an area doesn’t feel like supporting the team anymore or can’t make money, they can sell it to Los Angeles or London or wherever and the taxpayers can reap the massive windfall of the constantly appreciating value of a sports franchise.

 

The point is that we have no concept of how the money works in baseball because it’s a truly unique American industry – private with closed books but massive amounts of public assistance. This isn’t a fair game and it’s being run at the expense of fans and taxpayers. It’s time to pull the curtains back on the Wizard and take control ourselves. There’s no reason for 100 old white dudes to take in all of this money, shifting the risk associated with stadium construction onto the taxpayers. Let’s nationalize pro sports.

I enjoy many points that were made in this post. Not every one.....but many. It sickens me that a few percentage points of our population controls 90 percent of the money and thus, the power. I agree that there should be better regulation of baseball and all parts of our economy to insure a better balance. So, when I hear that a gazillionare is concerned about losing a little money on our national pastime I have no stomach for it. These are ruthless business people with loophole money everywhere due to owning a financial dynasty. Not enough money to grab a few decent free agents once in a while? Give me an $?&@/? Break!!

[drjim]

 

I think you're looking at this situation too much in black and white. Sports fans have an irrational attachment to their favorite teams.

If it were so cut and dry like you mention in your last post "If you believe they operate in such an underhanded way, how can you support the franchise?" There would be zero fans left cheering for the Cleveland Browns, Miami Marlins, New York Mets, etc.

We all have our reasons for becoming fans of a particular team.. Mine was because of living in MN growing up, and now to stay connected to my home state. Your story may be similar, or different.

We chose our team, not the owners; just because some of us would like things to be different shouldn't mean we should stop supporting the team.

 

That's fair. Of that group being a fan of the Marlins makes the least sense to me.

 

I would still differentiate between incompetence and underhandedness, which is what I was trying to distinguish in my comment (though admittedly probably did a poor job and probably read too much into the original comment anyways). I'm not sure that would apply to the Browns or Mets as much, though admittedly I'm not as close to those situations.

 

For example, I think the T-Wolves are basically a bunch of clowns (though perhaps turning a little), but I wouldn't stop being a fan, and will follow them even more closely once they start winning. The Vikings, on the other hand, are disgusting me enough at the ownership level, and NFL in general, that I have basically jumped ship. It would take quite a turn to get me back to follow any more closely than I did this year, which was very little.

 

For the Twins, I certainly follow them closely, but will actually spend even more of my actual cash now that they are winning again.