Jim Pohlad with Sid - is it really not about the money?

[nicksaviking]

 

What are you talking about?

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/33890-article-jorge-polanco’s-defensive-transformation/

 

You need to go a bit further left.

 

And for what it's worth, I'm A OK with subpar defense if the trade off is above average offense. But I wouldn't go out of my way to put those defenders in position to have to make MORE plays.

[Darius]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

Ryan used to say there wasn’t any Pohlad imposed limitations that were highly restrictive in terms of payroll. I never bought that company line.

 

I’d love to be proven wrong on this. They’re spending less than I believe they should be right now, IMO. We’ll know the truth in the near future (certainly next offseason when they should be targeting the top starters available).

[Richie the Rally Goat]

According to Statista five teams made less than the Twins last year. Three of them (Orioles / Blue Jays / Marlins) lost money. According to them your estimate, at least for 2018, is about 7X too high. Over the years I have looked at Forbes data every year. Their estimates average around $25M in profit. $100M is dramatically different tan any number I have ever seen, not to mention that estimate would suggest they can pay for every employee + payroll tax for players + travel + equipment + promotion, etc for around $30M for 2018. The payroll taxes alone (just players) are around $15M. What source are you using to come up with $100M? It sounds like a number you plucked out of the air.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193650/operating-income-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

1) Pohlad companies is a privately held organization. This or any of the other data we see is only what the Pohlad companies wants us to see.

2) Pohlad companies is among other things a media company. Their holdings include Go 96 where the Twins were broadcasted until 2018 when they went back to ‘CCO and partial stake in FSN. The Pohlads make money on advertising which probably doesn’t roll up to the Twins operating income, but we’ll never know because they are privately held.

3) Carl actively tries to have the team contracted in the early aughts. I’d believe they weren’t making money those years. Jim doesn’t seem to hot to sell. They’re making good bucks....

[Major League Ready]

 

1) Pohlad companies is a privately held organization. This or any of the other data we see is only what the Pohlad companies wants us to see.
2) Pohlad companies is among other things a media company. Their holdings include Go 96 where the Twins were broadcasted until 2018 when they went back to ‘CCO and partial stake in FSN. The Pohlads make money on advertising which probably doesn’t roll up to the Twins operating income, but we’ll never know because they are privately held.
3) Carl actively tries to have the team contracted in the early aughts. I’d believe they weren’t making money those years. Jim doesn’t seem to hot to sell. They’re making good bucks....

 

I am going to ignore 2&3 because they have very little to do with the primary point. What does the fact that The Pohlad Companies or for that matter MLB teams are privately owned have anything top do with estimates made by Stastista or Forbe?

 

The analysts constructing these estimates would not need any input at all to get with 5 percent +/- of a teams operating income. The revenue is taxable. The tax is public record. Therefore, revenue is easily verified.

 

The vast majority of overhead is  player and employee salaries. We know the player salaries with nearly 100% accuracy. We also can estimate payroll taxes on players salaries within one-half of one percent. Payroll for all other employees can also be estimated quite accurately by using the payroll taxes which are public record to estimate payroll. We don't know IRA contributions which could account for some error. We also don't know what percentage of payroll paid out after individuals surpass the max pay-in for Social Security. These are small in terms of percentage so salary and benefits for the entire organization could be estimated within +/- 2%.

 

I would presume the next highest cost is associated with travel. My guess is that Forbes or Statista could easily obtain an accurate estimate of costs associated with airlines / hotels / per diem, etc and also accurately estimate the quantity of each item. Even a sloppy estimate should be within 10%.

 

The same is true for any other cost of significance. Forbes and/or Statista could get within 5% of actual operating cost without any great effort.

[jctwins]

 

I didn't see it as a response to "you're not spending" but just another thing the team is working on regularly.

 

Whatever you say about the Twins and Pohlads, their continual upgrade and improvement of Target Field has been top-notch.

 

I won't argue this point with you, but they have a commitment to continually "upgrade" the facility for the taxpayers, but each most upgrades have been in low revenue generating areas or aspects of the park with the end result of increasing revenue.

 

 

[howeda7]

 

I won't argue this point with you, but they have a commitment to continually "upgrade" the facility for the taxpayers, but each most upgrades have been in low revenue generating areas or aspects of the park with the end result of increasing revenue.

They have minimum annual commitments in the stadium legislation to pay so much for upkeep, but they have gone far beyond that so far.

[howeda7]

 

I think the original poster using the words “clear $100M per year” certainly makes it incorrect, but if you factor in that the value of the franchise likely goes up by more than 50M annually, you can get much closer to that 100M number.

I haven't seen updated #'s and I know they make more off FSN now, but still below league average. I do recall that going into the stadium, the $120-ish million payroll is what they could afford and still break even. Obviously it should be a bit higher 10 years later, but they also don't sell out every game anymore. My guess is that $130-$140 million payroll would be there break-even point so if they're clearing anything it's $20 million or less. Certainly not $100. As for appreciation of the value of the team, that's arbitrary until you find a buyer.

[Otto von Ballpark]

They have minimum annual commitments in the stadium legislation to pay so much for upkeep, but they have gone far beyond that so far.

But to what end? To invest in more highly profitable bars?

[howeda7]

 

But to what end? To invest in more highly profitable bars?

I don't have a list in front of me, but they've done more than invest in bars. Also, it's not like they get all of that revenue. The stadium commission still gets their cut. More to the point, the bars are pretty popular with fans, no?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't have a list in front of me, but they've done more than invest in bars. Also, it's not like they get all of that revenue. The stadium commission still gets their cut. More to the point, the bars are pretty popular with fans, no?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the public receives any revenue from Target Field other than sales taxes.

 

The following article itemizes $28.1 mil of Twins investments into Target Field since it opened -- $17.1 mil of which have been for bars (and they also got $5 mil from the public Ballpark Authority for one of their bar projects too):

 

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya1OEaSrCdEJ:https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/03/27/target-field-at-year-10-ballpark-continues-to.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with their willingness to invest in the product on the field.

[jctwins]

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the public receives any revenue from Target Field other than sales taxes.

The following article itemizes $28.1 mil of Twins investments into Target Field since it opened -- $17.1 mil of which have been for bars (and they also got $5 mil from the public Ballpark Authority for one of their bar projects too):

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya1OEaSrCdEJ:https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/03/27/target-field-at-year-10-ballpark-continues-to.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with their willingness to invest in the product on the field.

 

I brought this up because RocketPig suggested that the team has spent money on the ballpark. My point is that they spend when it benefits them directly, but haven't demonstrated a willingness to spend when it benefits the fans' entertainment value. Short sighted thinking in my opinion.

 

 

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

I brought this up because RocketPig suggested that the team has spent money on the ballpark. My point is that they spend when it benefits them directly, but haven't demonstrated a willingness to spend when it benefits the fans' entertainment value. Short sighted thinking in my opinion.

 

This.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I brought this up because RocketPig suggested that the team has spent money on the ballpark. My point is that they spend when it benefits them directly, but haven't demonstrated a willingness to spend when it benefits the fans' entertainment value. Short sighted thinking in my opinion.

Got it.

 

I don't know -- I think their spending on the ballpark is about what I would expect, even if it mostly to boost their own revenue. (And their spending on the team is about what I'd expect too, although I hope to see an aggressive push to the upper bounds of payroll now given our current position!)

[howeda7]

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the public receives any revenue from Target Field other than sales taxes.

The following article itemizes $28.1 mil of Twins investments into Target Field since it opened -- $17.1 mil of which have been for bars (and they also got $5 mil from the public Ballpark Authority for one of their bar projects too):

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya1OEaSrCdEJ:https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/03/27/target-field-at-year-10-ballpark-continues-to.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with their willingness to invest in the product on the field.

It has to do with it because it would be illogical to say "I'll spend millions adding a bar to the stadium, but I won't let you increase payroll by 5% in a trade that might help us win the division. which many here seem to believe.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It has to do with it because it would be illogical to say "I'll spend millions adding a bar to the stadium, but I won't let you increase payroll by 5% in a trade that might help us win the division. which many here seem to believe.

Nothing illogical in that at all. Spending millions to add a bar, which is virtually guaranteed to generate $X range of profit, is a very, very different decision than adding player payroll (which has a much more murky path to return on investment -- in some ways, it's more akin to buying a lotto ticket or gambling).

 

That said, if you want to specifically say 5%, I think they can do that -- that would only be about $6 mil more for us this year, which could mean Bumgarner plus a modest reliever salary, and would put us close to last year's payroll.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

Ryan used to say there wasn’t any Pohlad imposed limitations that were highly restrictive in terms of payroll. I never bought that company line.

 

I’d love to be proven wrong on this. They’re spending less than I believe they should be right now, IMO. We’ll know the truth in the near future (certainly next offseason when they should be targeting the top starters available).

I don’t care who they target because going for the “top starter” might be a bad proposition if the metrics don’t like his stuff.

 

What I care about is overall spending. Spend wisely, but spend quite a bit more than they are now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I won't argue this point with you, but they have a commitment to continually "upgrade" the facility for the taxpayers, but each most upgrades have been in low revenue generating areas or aspects of the park with the end result of increasing revenue.

In some cases, yes, but they've also added a lot of non-revenue stuff (the RF pillar scoreboard, replacing the batter's eye, some of the CF stuff). It's not all "more bars and food", which I'm also not going to complain about.

 

They've done a very good job with Target Field. We don't have to crap all over that effort just because we all agree they don't spend enough on payroll.

[BattleYourTailOff]

In some cases, yes, but they've also added a lot of non-revenue stuff (the RF pillar scoreboard, replacing the batter's eye, some of the CF stuff). It's not all "more bars and food", which I'm also not going to complain about.

 

They've done a very good job with Target Field. We don't have to crap all over that effort just because we all agree they don't spend enough on payroll.

They have a beautiful stadium that we love but they own and benefit completely from. I’d rather watch twins baseball at the metrodump if it meant more World Series titles and an ownership that adds key pieces at the deadline. Hell I’d rather watch it at Tropican... ok maybe not there haha.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They have a beautiful stadium that we love but they own and benefit completely from. I’d rather watch twins baseball at the metrodump if it meant more World Series titles and an ownership that adds key pieces at the deadline. Hell I’d rather watch it at Tropican... ok maybe not there haha.

This is not a zero sum game. You can commend them on one hand while criticizing on the other.

[BattleYourTailOff]

This is not a zero sum game. You can commend them on one hand while criticizing on the other.

And I do commend them on their tasteful ballpark design and great location (I live right in uptown just a hop down Hennepin)... But without a team that at least goes for the gold once in three decades what’s the point? Might as well be a giant dance club or something, I want to see a World Series game at Target Field. I don’t know if the ownership really truly cares as much as the fans.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In some cases, yes, but they've also added a lot of non-revenue stuff (the RF pillar scoreboard, replacing the batter's eye, some of the CF stuff). It's not all "more bars and food", which I'm also not going to complain about.

 

What's "a lot"? If you check my link upthread, the RF scoreboard is less than 20% of their investment, and it is also 8-9 years old now. (And the Twins later got an equal amount from the public for their "Bat & Barrel" restaurant project anyway)

 

What CF stuff isn't revenue generating?

 

They have re-done the batter's eye a few times, but I consider the cumulative effect on the fan experience as pretty much neutral. Same with the RF bleacher area.

 

They've done very little for families at the stadium -- not to argue for or against that, but it seems pretty representative of how they feel about non-revenue TF improvements.

[jctwins]

Rocketpig I agree with your sentiment about being willing to complement them where appropriate. 

 

I just think it's disingenuous to hold out that they are investing in the ballpark as an illustration that they will spend money when asked. They (the owners and regime) fall back on that too often. We're about to find out if that changes when the iron is hot.

 

 

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

What's "a lot"? If you check my link upthread, the RF scoreboard is less than 20% of their investment, and it is also 8-9 years old now. (And the Twins later got an equal amount from the public for their "Bat & Barrel" restaurant project anyway)

 

What CF stuff isn't revenue generating?

 

They have re-done the batter's eye a few times, but I consider the cumulative effect on the fan experience as pretty much neutral. Same with the RF bleacher area.

 

They've done very little for families at the stadium -- not to argue for or against that, but it seems pretty representative of how they feel about non-revenue TF improvements.

TC’s clubhouse in section 229 is great

 

 

Sunday is great with the kids. Target sponsors a big craft area by gate 34/flagpoles where the kids can make banners/pennants and such.

 

Most of the kids stuff is free or cheap ($25 annual pass)