Why are the Twins giving up TWO home games to play in Puerto Rico next year?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This makes it easier for them to raise prices -- they can say (total) season ticket prices aren't going up, but just have 2 fewer games. I think it is fair to question their motivation here.

I think their motivation is pretty clear: increasing the profile of the Twins brand outside Minnesota. Puerto Rico makes a lot of sense. The Twins have several young, promising PR-born players.

 

And besides, somebody has to play in Puerto Rico if MLB is going to schedule games there.

 

I just don't see much to get riled up about here. It's 2.5% of home games. NFL teams forfeit a lot more every time one of them plays in London.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think their motivation is pretty clear: increasing the profile of the Twins brand outside Minnesota. Puerto Rico makes a lot of sense. The Twins have several young, promising PR-born players.

 

And besides, somebody has to play in Puerto Rico if MLB is going to schedule games there.

 

I just don't see much to get riled up about here. It's 2.5% of home games. NFL teams forfeit a lot more every time one of them plays in London.

I don't doubt that is part of it. But they could have achieved the same with 1 "home" game down there, and a second "road" game. The fact that Cleveland, with an already established Puerto Rican star in Lindor, and even lower average 2017 attendance than the Twins so far, apparently declined to move a home game down there, suggests maybe this a specious benefit on a team level. Any revenue from Puerto Rico (MLBAM, merchandising) is split equally among MLB teams, no? Hard to see this meaningfully being about the Twins brand.

 

The primary benefit is spreading the MLB brand. I'm guessing the league pushed for this, and the Twins volunteered (perhaps with financial incentives from the league?).

 

And I am not getting "riled up" about it, I am just discussing it. Please don't assume I am putting this on the level with contraction or anything!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't doubt that is part of it. But they could have achieved the same with 1 "home" game down there, and a second "road" game. The fact that Cleveland, with an already established Puerto Rican star in Lindor, and even lower average 2017 attendance than the Twins so far, apparently declined to move a home game down there, suggests maybe this a specious benefit on a team level. Any revenue from Puerto Rico (MLBAM, merchandising) is split equally among MLB teams, no? Hard to see this meaningfully being about the Twins brand.

The primary benefit is spreading the MLB brand. I'm guessing the league pushed for this, and the Twins volunteered (perhaps with financial incentives from the league?).

And I am not getting "riled up" about it, I am just discussing it. Please don't assume I am putting this on the level with contraction or anything!

Oh, the riled up bit wasn't directed at you. You don't get riled up about much of anything as far as I can tell. You're always level-headed.

 

I don't really understand why they didn't split the games into home/road but the MLB schedule is a monstrosity unto itself. I won't even speculate what MLB demands/gives and whether a home/road split was even on the table.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Twins vs Cleveland, well before the rest of the schedule is even announced, I can't imagine why a split wouldn't have been on the table.

 

Like I said, it seems like the Twins were a little too eager to step up to the plate here, so I am guessing there is a fairly direct financial benefit for them (in addition to the more esoteric benefits they are emphasizing publicly ).

[Brock Beauchamp]

Twins vs Cleveland, well before the rest of the schedule is even announced, I can't imagine why a split wouldn't have been on the table.

 

Like I said, it seems like the Twins were a little too eager to step up to the plate here, so I am guessing there is a fairly direct financial benefit for them (in addition to the more esoteric benefits they are emphasizing publicly ).

I'm on a phone so if someone else wants to do the legwork, that'd be great.

 

What's the history of PR games? I'm going from really hazy memory but I recall that one team played a three game "home series" in PR (that, obviously, was not the Expos/Nats).

[Brock Beauchamp]

Found it. The Marlins in 2010. Not sure of the home/road split yet though.

 

edit: yep, the Marlins were the home team in all three games.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Marlins? Loria? That definitely suggests a financial incentive was at play...

[Brock Beauchamp]

Marlins? Loria? That definitely suggests a financial incentive was at play...

Hah, fair enough.

 

But despite Loria's general douchebaggery, I suspect his reasoning had more to do with proximity and expansion of his brand than the dollars and cents of "cheating" season ticket holders out of three games.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Hah, fair enough.

 

But despite Loria's general douchebaggery, I suspect his reasoning had more to do with proximity and expansion of his brand than the dollars and cents of "cheating" season ticket holders out of three games.

I'm not sure there is any evidence that Loria particularly cares about any of that. Note this was pre-Marlins Park, they probably made better gate in Puerto Rico than at home.

[mikecgrimes]

 

It doesn't sound like a lot, but that is 2.5% of revenue those people, small businesses etc are losing out on.

 

It's 2 games in April, beyond the fact that those businesses don't rely on the Twins as much as you might think (the good ones anyways) it's nowhere near 2.5% of the Twins based revenue.  You were in the ballpark in April how many people actually showed up to the games? 

[jud6312]

How about the lost income tax revenue of two teams' payrolls for 2 games?

 

If I remember correctly, each player/coach/trainer/etc. is taxed on a per game basis where the game is played. So, two less home games means fewer taxes collected.

 

Still not a big deal, but it means the loss is wider than just the Target Field adjacent businesses.

[spinowner]

 

How about the lost income tax revenue of two teams' payrolls for 2 games?

 

If I remember correctly, each player/coach/trainer/etc. is taxed on a per game basis where the game is played. So, two less home games means fewer taxes collected.

 

Still not a big deal, but it means the loss is wider than just the Target Field adjacent businesses.

Interesting and significant point, although I don't know the amount in dollars. In any case the victim concerning this aspect is the State of Minnesota (and its taxpayers).

[Sarah]

When I first saw this post I couldn't tell if you were kidding or not - have you been to Twins games in April at Target Field? I generally spend about two hours trying to warm up when I get home. I think it's fantastic that they are playing in Puerto Rico next spring, would be so fun to be there especially with the likes of Berrios, Rosario, Lindor, etc. Bring it on!

[jctwins]

As has been said, there is little doubt that this will be a way to increase ST prices by the same 2.5%, which they have delayed doing for several years. It will make it easier to swallow, and less noticable for the STH that pay their balance on a monthly basis. 

 

 

[akmanak]

Who really cares, Twins cant win at home anyhow so it really is a blessing.

[Kwak]

Sounds like a junket to me.  Some sort of sop to a travel company to sell airline, hotel, et al to fat cat Twins' fans.  This isn't as silly as the Vikings playing one of their home games in London, England.

[spinowner]

Nothing I've read here has been a reasonable explanation why the Twins give up two home games and Cleveland gives up none. I have no outrage, and I don't think it will make any significant difference over the course of a 162-game season, but it just seems like the only logical, fair way would be for each team to give up one home game.

[Otto von Ballpark]

After the hurricane, it sounds like there are official doubts that the Twins will actually play in Puerto Rico next April:

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

After the hurricane, it sounds like there are official doubts that the Twins will actually play in Puerto Rico next April:

 

https://twitter.com/tlschwerz/status/913055969533407232

Was thinking about this last night, thanks.

[twinsnorth49]

[Sarah]

Seems like it would be kind of a tricky situation (like the president visiting an area after a natural disaster) - you don't want to make it look like you're abandoning them but at the same time when the whole country is without power playing a baseball game isn't a priority. I would put more stock in what Thad Levine said - Bert Blyleven said on the telecast the other night that he's sure they would still play but I figured that was just him trying to be Nostradamus...

[amjgt]

 

Nothing I've read here has been a reasonable explanation why the Twins give up two home games and Cleveland gives up none. I have no outrage, and I don't think it will make any significant difference over the course of a 162-game season, but it just seems like the only logical, fair way would be for each team to give up one home game.

 

I suspect the Twins, based on some relative recent player/draft success out of the PR market, saw a lot of value in playing some games in PR and were willing to give up a couple home games to make it happen. Step 2 was to find a team willing to play there, which the other team(s) was willing to do, but not at the cost of giving up a home game.

[diehardtwinsfan]

honestly, PR in April makes sense for a number of reasons given how often games get rained out (or just the temp in MN).  Unfortunately, between Maria and Irma, who knows if that will be doable.