IMO, this is why you acquire SP from outside

[gunnarthor]

 

Many things about the way they run the club really piss me off, but this statement is very true.

Actually, no. Good owners invest in their team to increase their profit margins and revenue. The Pohlad family sat on their ass for over 15 years to get a tax funded stadium from us. They didn't do the stuff that teams like Texas and Colorado (let alone LA and NY) by making strong strides to improve TV contracts, social media or even baseball operation departments. The family treated the Twins as a small revenue stream and didn't invest in it. They are among the worst owners in the league. The Twins are in a strong market in what could easily be a baseball town and should be able to have the resources the Cardinals or Seattle have but failed to create those because they were waiting for us to give them millions of dollars instead and investing in the team killed the narrative that a new stadium was the only way to compete.

[kab21]

I don't think it is relevant to look at how the 2000's Twins or even other teams built their rotations. We ALL would like to build a homegrown rotation that included 1-2 #2 (or better types).

 

The relevant part is that we need to assess where the Twins are currently at and what prospects are coming up soon. The rotation is no longer deplorably awful but it isn't good at all unless you are a believer in Gibson's end of season resurgence or optimistically project Mejia (solid potential but an unknown still). The prospects finally have some potential to help out in the next couple of years (Gonsalves, Romero and a few others) but the most we can expect is very good 3's and 4's out of that group and it will take time.

 

So if you want to improve the rotation next year then it is going to have to be done in FA or in a trade that likely involves Gordon and one of Gonsalves/Romero. And even that trade isn't landing you a good #2 or at least one that doesn't come with negatives (injury history, age, lack of team control, etc...).

 

No option put forth is going to be universally agreed upon but which is the best compromise?

[The Wise One]

 

Actually, no. Good owners invest in their team to increase their profit margins and revenue. The Pohlad family sat on their ass for over 15 years to get a tax funded stadium from us. They didn't do the stuff that teams like Texas and Colorado (let alone LA and NY) by making strong strides to improve TV contracts, social media or even baseball operation departments. The family treated the Twins as a small revenue stream and didn't invest in it. They are among the worst owners in the league. The Twins are in a strong market in what could easily be a baseball town and should be able to have the resources the Cardinals or Seattle have but failed to create those because they were waiting for us to give them millions of dollars instead and investing in the team killed the narrative that a new stadium was the only way to compete.

The Twin Cities for other than football have been front running fans. They come out when the teams do great, disappear when the teams lose. The North Stars and Timberwolves have shown that. Having division winners did not fill the dome as one would expect  for a baseball town. Target Field had a newness to draw the fans. The revenue from fans has dropped from 53 to 43 per fan. The bar and grill that is Target field is losing their highest spending customers. 

 

Seattle has a high payroll  for their investment they drew 2 million fans, down from the 3 million fans. Spending money "investing" in your team does not bring fans in. 1995-2001 they were averaging 3 million fans, now 2.  

[drjim]

Actually, no. Good owners invest in their team to increase their profit margins and revenue. The Pohlad family sat on their ass for over 15 years to get a tax funded stadium from us. They didn't do the stuff that teams like Texas and Colorado (let alone LA and NY) by making strong strides to improve TV contracts, social media or even baseball operation departments. The family treated the Twins as a small revenue stream and didn't invest in it. They are among the worst owners in the league. The Twins are in a strong market in what could easily be a baseball town and should be able to have the resources the Cardinals or Seattle have but failed to create those because they were waiting for us to give them millions of dollars instead and investing in the team killed the narrative that a new stadium was the only way to compete.

I think you are mistaken in this is how other teams operate, that the Twins did something unique pre-Target Field, or that the Twins could roll quite as well as the Mariners or Cardinals. Seattle is a higher revenue area and the Cardinals are the second most successful franchise in baseball history (and a true baseball town) vs a more middling Twins history and an area spread over 4 sports and major colleges.

 

If the Twins had a decade run of sustained success that would bump up revenues and payroll, but it is not merely more investment holding that back.

[USAFChief]

 

I think you are mistaken in this is how other teams operate, that the Twins did something unique pre-Target Field, or that the Twins could roll quite as well as the Mariners or Cardinals. Seattle is a higher revenue area and the Cardinals are the second most successful franchise in baseball history (and a true baseball town) vs a more middling Twins history and an area spread over 4 sports and major colleges.

If the Twins had a decade run of sustained success that would bump up revenues and payroll, but it is not merely more investment holding that back.

Is offering up your team for contraction unique? Selling the radio rights to your own station, which doesn't have the signal strength to even cover the metro area? Committing to paying a portion of the costs of a new stadium, and then reneging on that arrangement by pulling your share out of stadium revenue? Never, not once, stretching payroll to meet team needs to the point where it might be reasonable to assume ownership actually didn't take a profit for a year?

 

Would St Louis fans have the same disincentives to being strong fans?

 

It's not unreasonable to think the Pohlad family is at least partially responsible for lowering their own revenue stream.

[drjim]

Is offering up your team for contraction unique? Selling the radio rights to your own station, which doesn't have the signal strength to even cover the metro area? Committing to paying a portion of the costs of a new stadium, and then reneging on that arrangement by pulling your share out of stadium revenue? Never, not once, stretching payroll to meet team needs to the point where it might be reasonable to assume ownership actually didn't take a profit for a year?

 

Would St Louis fans have the same disincentives to being strong fans?

 

It's not unreasonable to think the Pohlad family is at least partially responsible for lowering their own revenue stream.

I'll grant the contraction "strategy". That was ill advised.

 

But I don't buy anything else you mentione as being outside the norm.

[diehardtwinsfan]

citing teams like NY and LA in this conversation is really a bit disingenuous. These teams can print money faster than the Federal Reserve, so yes, I expect them to be able to invest in their teams because of that. They didn't get to that point because they invested in their teams. They got there due to market size.

 

This isn't to say the Pohlads shouldn't be investing, but that I don't think Steinbrenner is that much different from Pohlad. He simply has a lot more to work with and as such can spend much more liberally. I don't think the Pohlads don't want to win, but I do think we need to recognize that instead of applying labels or wondering why the Pohlads won't spend.

 

Now that said, I think we all agree that they should spend, and for the first time since opening TF, they are in a position where spending makes sense. Let's see what they do.

[gunnarthor]

 

I think you are mistaken in this is how other teams operate, that the Twins did something unique pre-Target Field, or that the Twins could roll quite as well as the Mariners or Cardinals. Seattle is a higher revenue area and the Cardinals are the second most successful franchise in baseball history (and a true baseball town) vs a more middling Twins history and an area spread over 4 sports and major colleges.

If the Twins had a decade run of sustained success that would bump up revenues and payroll, but it is not merely more investment holding that back.

The Twins did have a run of sustained success and it didn't do jack ****. The Twins were 27th in payroll in 2002 and 27th in payroll in 2009 because "without a new stadium, the Twins couldn't compete." They opened TF in 2010, jumped to 10th in payroll, peaked at 9th in 2011 and immediately cut payroll. They are back down in the 20s and have stayed there.

 

Ownership never pushed for revenue streams outside of a new stadium. They didn't get a big TV contract like other teams, as others noted, their radio presence was minor. The Twin Cities is a good market - comparable in size and dollars to St. Louis and Seattle. Ownership is bad.

[nicksaviking]

Their TV contract stinks because they hilariously overestimated how much they could charge broadcasters for their own TwinsTv network then had to come back groveling to FSN mid season to get their viewers back when their station predictably folded.

 

FSN had all the leverage at that point, I'm guessing they did the Twins no monetary favors when the finally cut their deal.

[drjim]

 

The Twins did have a run of sustained success and it didn't do jack ****. The Twins were 27th in payroll in 2002 and 27th in payroll in 2009 because "without a new stadium, the Twins couldn't compete." They opened TF in 2010, jumped to 10th in payroll, peaked at 9th in 2011 and immediately cut payroll. They are back down in the 20s and have stayed there.

 

Ownership never pushed for revenue streams outside of a new stadium. They didn't get a big TV contract like other teams, as others noted, their radio presence was minor. The Twin Cities is a good market - comparable in size and dollars to St. Louis and Seattle. Ownership is bad.

 

They didn't cut payroll for giggles. They sucked and were turning over a veteran roster. They fell all the way to 13th in 2012.

 

Part of the TV contract is market, not only size by cable penetration. It is not comparable to markets around them. They probably signed a bad deal, but it wasn't going to be a massive increase, the big deals are going to the massive markets.

[drjim]

 

Their TV contract stinks because they hilariously overestimated how much they could charge broadcasters for their own TwinsTv network then had to come back groveling to FSN mid season to get their viewers back when their station predictably folded.

FSN had all the leverage at that point, I'm guessing they did the Twins no monetary favors when the finally cut their deal.

 

So I wonder if we criticize the team for going big and getting burned, or acknowledge that they made a push for increased revenues that flopped. To say they didn't try for revenues outside of the stadium is preposterous on its face.

[gunnarthor]

 

So I wonder if we criticize the team for going big and getting burned, or acknowledge that they made a push for increased revenues that flopped. To say they didn't try for revenues outside of the stadium is preposterous on its face.

 

 

If you think ownership has made legit efforts to increase revenue streams in the last twenty years, fine. If they did make the effort then they are incredibly incompetent group. More likely, they didn't make the efforts because doing so hurt their long term goal of getting a publicly financed stadium. When we compare market size to we see that the Twins lag behind comparable communities by a lot. We've seen the new GM already make excuses for payroll. We have bad owners.

 

I do not buy for a second that the Twins were unable to increase revenue streams in the 2000s because MN wasn't the right sort of market for them. They had a decade of winning. During that time, ownership constantly held back against signing bonuses and increasing our efforts in foreign markets. Ownership has given out exactly one legit big contract - to Joe Mauer - and that's the entire extent of financial largess they've given the fan base. In the last few years we've already heard Jim Pohlad whine about the contracts he gave out to Nolasco as being misspent meaning he has no understanding of the risks of FA. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

They didn't cut payroll for giggles. They sucked and were turning over a veteran roster. They fell all the way to 13th in 2012.

 

Part of the TV contract is market, not only size by cable penetration. It is not comparable to markets around them. They probably signed a bad deal, but it wasn't going to be a massive increase, the big deals are going to the massive markets.

 

If only you could sign veterans, and then flip them, thus spending money to get more young players.....so, ya, they cut payroll for giggles. They certainly didn't keep it up to add talent in any meaningful way, either to keep on the MLB team, or to trade.

[drjim]

 

If you think ownership has made legit efforts to increase revenue streams in the last twenty years, fine. If they did make the effort then they are incredibly incompetent group. More likely, they didn't make the efforts because doing so hurt their long term goal of getting a publicly financed stadium. When we compare market size to we see that the Twins lag behind comparable communities by a lot. We've seen the new GM already make excuses for payroll. We have bad owners.

 

I do not buy for a second that the Twins were unable to increase revenue streams in the 2000s because MN wasn't the right sort of market for them. They had a decade of winning. During that time, ownership constantly held back against signing bonuses and increasing our efforts in foreign markets. Ownership has given out exactly one legit big contract - to Joe Mauer - and that's the entire extent of financial largess they've given the fan base. In the last few years we've already heard Jim Pohlad whine about the contracts he gave out to Nolasco as being misspent meaning he has no understanding of the risks of FA. 

 

They literally launched their own TV network in an attempt to capture more revenue. But I do agree they probably slow played some other options before Target Field to plead poverty.

 

Now that they have Target Field, they have actually been somewhat creative in the ways they use the stadium and in ticket packages, to name a couple. Keeping radio in house leads to more revenue too. They have been handcuffed somewhat because the team has been so terrible.

[drjim]

 

If only you could sign veterans, and then flip them, thus spending money to get more young players.....so, ya, they cut payroll for giggles. They certainly didn't keep it up to add talent in any meaningful way, either to keep on the MLB team, or to trade.

 

I would agree they failed in sign and flip opportunities, but that can be a little overstated. But definitely among the reasons there is a new GM. But I would argue they spent pretty close to appropriately for a rebuilding team (relative to their revenues), they were inept in the way they allocated it.

[Loosey]

 

Forbes estimates the Mariners' 2017 revenue at $289M, the Twins at $249M.

 

FWIW, that puts the Mariners in 13th place, the Twins 23nd, in terms of revenue, if I counted correctly

.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

And if I recall it will take a year or so for fan interest to come back after a good season.  Attendance is usually on a 9-12 month lag.  So assuming the team can get more butts in the seats next year and continue to win I see no reason why revenue can't get into the White Sox or Blue Jays range ($270M) which was 15th place - right in line with their place in the overall market.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

I would agree they failed in sign and flip opportunities, but that can be a little overstated. But definitely among the reasons there is a new GM. But I would argue they spent pretty close to appropriately for a rebuilding team (relative to their revenues), they were inept in the way they allocated it.

 

I think that's fair. we agree on the allocation issue for sure. The amount is, imo, actually a smaller issue to me.

[nicksaviking]

So I wonder if we criticize the team for going big and getting burned, or acknowledge that they made a push for increased revenues that flopped. To say they didn't try for revenues outside of the stadium is preposterous on its face.

I have no problem applauding the ambition but shaking my head at the fact that they apparently did not do their homework.

[jctwins]

 

If you think ownership has made legit efforts to increase revenue streams in the last twenty years, fine. If they did make the effort then they are incredibly incompetent group. More likely, they didn't make the efforts because doing so hurt their long term goal of getting a publicly financed stadium. When we compare market size to we see that the Twins lag behind comparable communities by a lot. We've seen the new GM already make excuses for payroll. We have bad owners.

 

I do not buy for a second that the Twins were unable to increase revenue streams in the 2000s because MN wasn't the right sort of market for them. They had a decade of winning. During that time, ownership constantly held back against signing bonuses and increasing our efforts in foreign markets. Ownership has given out exactly one legit big contract - to Joe Mauer - and that's the entire extent of financial largess they've given the fan base. In the last few years we've already heard Jim Pohlad whine about the contracts he gave out to Nolasco as being misspent meaning he has no understanding of the risks of FA. 

 

I think the bold sentence is where both sides of this argument can be correct.

 

The Pohlads would be willing to spend money when told they need to, but I think they got handcuffed by their own trust in Terry Ryan, and then let St. Peter or whoever is in charge of marketing get to powerful and they just plain have not been successfully marketing the product.

 

These owners are completely reliant on other people to make their business decisions on the baseball club, because they are not baseball people, and they don't want to be.