Article: Where Should Payroll Sit in 2013?

[Guest USAFChief]

I think the idea that 112M isn't enough tells all we really need to know about some Twins fans.

 

That we expect ownership to want to win at least as much as we do?

 

That we expect them to make a $130m-ish contribution to Target Field, like they promised, rather than take their contribution out of revenues and, in fact, contribute NOTHING out of pocket towards their new stadium?

 

That we expect them to at least honor their oft-stated "52% of revenues to payroll" promise, which doesn't even factor in the fact there is no reason that percentage should have to stay as low as 52% with the move to TF, since other expenses didn't jump proportionately?

 

That simple math tells us $112M in 2011 barely--at best--constitutes the promised 52%, yet is referred to by this writer as "beyond their comfort level" and everyone seems to buy that?

 

Is that what it tells you about "some fans?"

[Shane Wahl]

The Twins could compete for the division next year at slightly under $100 million. If they wanted to find a way to buy a SS, that might push it to $103-105 or so.

 

I sometimes think the people forget just how much money was wasted in 2012 on Pavano, Baker, Liriano, Blackburn, Capps, Marquis, and Nishioka. About $25 million or so spent plus arbitration increases and the Twins are back at the original 2012 payroll. That money could be spent on Edwin Jackson and Shaun Marcum, Marcum, Blanton, and Saunders, or Marcum, Blanton, and X shortstop, etc. To ignore how much any of those options would improve the team is rather preposterous. Add a few million guaranteed to Baker and hope that he earns another $4 or 5 in incentives and this team really could win the division. AGAIN, for the millionth time, the lineup at 100% was pretty good even with a bad starting rotation.

[Shane Wahl]

I think the idea that 112M isn't enough tells all we really need to know about some Twins fans.

 

That we expect ownership to want to win at least as much as we do?

 

That we expect them to make a $130m-ish contribution to Target Field, like they promised, rather than take their contribution out of revenues and, in fact, contribute NOTHING out of pocket towards their new stadium?

 

That we expect them to at least honor their oft-stated "52% of revenues to payroll" promise, which doesn't even factor in the fact there is no reason that percentage should have to stay as low as 52% with the move to TF, since other expenses didn't jump proportionately?

 

That simple math tells us $112M in 2011 barely--at best--constitutes the promised 52%, yet is referred to by this writer as "beyond their comfort level" and everyone seems to buy that?

 

Is that what it tells you about "some fans?"

 

Nice. I agree. There is ESPECIALLY an issue in 2013 (and there WAS this issue in 2012 as well) given that the future would indicate a roster dominated by team-controlled players like Hicks, Arcia, Sano, Rosario, Gibson, Hendriks, et all. Payroll is going to naturally go down in the future when the youth movement moves to the majors. So why not spend more EVEN IF ONLY to trade the players later?

[ThePuck]

Except that's not what really happened. They didn't go for it. They did the opposite. They didn't go after starting pitching, which would have been an attempt to push to the next level. Instead they gutted the middle infield and the bullpen in 2011. The rise in payroll was due to rises in payroll from contracts already on the books along with arbitration pay rises and Nishi.

Untrue. The Twins could have let free agents Carl Pavano and Jim Thome walk, but stretched payroll beyond the level they were comfortable with in order to keep the team together and make another run.

 

But that is bringing back the SAME players...that wasn't IMPROVING the team that had just got swept out of the ALDS...AGAIN (And one was a 40 year old part time DH). So, how does that show they are going for it and improving the team to push to the next level? Especially when you consider:

 

A: They still didn't do anything to upgrade the starting pitching from what it was in 2010. They went into spring training with 'six major league starting pitchers 'competing' for the five spots'. None of them were new.

B: They still gutted their fine bullpen.

C: They still dismantled their middle infield.

 

How is that going for it and improving their team from what they had in 2010?

[Nick Nelson]

But that is bringing back the SAME players...that wasn't IMPROVING the team that had just got swept out of the ALDS...AGAIN (And one was a 40 year old part time DH). So, how does that show they are going for it and improving the team to push to the next level? Especially when you consider:

 

A: They still didn't do anything to upgrade the starting pitching from what it was in 2010. They went into spring training with 'six major league starting pitchers 'competing' for the five spots'. None of them were new.

B: They still gutted their fine bullpen.

C: They still dismantled their middle infield.

 

How is that going for it and improving their team from what they had in 2010?

You can certainly argue with the quality of the plan (I sure did). I'm not breaking any ground here, though. They have said multiple times that they stretched payroll to bring back Pavano and Thome, which accounts for most of the increase from 2010 to 2011. That is their publicly held stance, which is why I used the word "purportedly."

[ThePuck]

You can certainly argue with the quality of the plan (I sure did). I'm not breaking any ground here, though. They have said multiple times that they stretched payroll to bring back Pavano and Thome, which accounts for most of the increase from 2010 to 2011. That is their publicly held stance, which is why I used the word "purportedly."

 

Okay, but here's the thing. Payroll went up 15M from 2010 to 2011. Pavano and Thome were on the 2010 roster. They only got 2.5 million more between them for 2011. 2.5M, that's it. A 1M raise for Pavano and a 1.5 M raise for Thome. That's less than 20% of the 15M increase.

 

Yes, I know Pavano got 8M and Thome got 3M for 2011, but that whole amount wasn't fresh money coming onto payroll. Their 2010 salaries were already on the books for our team that had a payroll of 97.5M. They weren't brought in to add on to the 97.5M 2010 team. Look at it this way, we take them off the roster, taking away the 7M and 1.5M they made, that drops it to 89 M. Then bring them back by adding the 11M with their new 2011 salaries. That's 100M.

[Nick Nelson]

I understand that. They were both free agents. The Twins could have let them both walk and saved ~12M. Keeping them wasn't about actively changing the makeup of the team, it was about trying to "keep the band together" as much as possible and make another run after a successful 2010 campaign. You're preaching to the choir about the shortcomings of this plan, but – again – that was their stance.

[kab21]

Okay, but here's the thing. Payroll went up 15M from 2010 to 2011. Pavano and Thome were on the 2010 roster. They only got 2.5 million more between them for 2011. 2.5M, that's it. A 1M raise for Pavano and a 1.5 M raise for Thome. That's less than 20% of the 15M increase.

 

Yes, I know Pavano got 8M and Thome got 3M for 2011, but that whole amount wasn't fresh money coming onto payroll. Their 2010 salaries were already on the books for our team that had a payroll of 97.5M. They weren't brought in to add on to the 97.5M 2010 team. Look at it this way, we take them off the roster, taking away the 7M and 1.5M they made, that drops it to 89 M. Then bring them back by adding the 11M with their new 2011 salaries. That's 100M.

 

Here's the thing - at some point this happens to teams that are successful for 10 years. Teams get old and it becomes very difficult to simply maintain the team much less add new players. tbh - We've been spoiled by a decade of winning.

[ThePuck]

'Here's the thing - at some point this happens to teams that are successful for 10 years. Teams get old and it becomes very difficult to simply maintain the team much less add new players. tbh - We've been spoiled by a decade of winning.'

 

our discussion centered around whether or not that spike rise in payroll in 2011 was ownership's way of trying to push us over the edge from 2010 to 2011. If you follow the back and forth discussion, you'll see that. I believe I made a case that wasn't really the case, considering they gutted the middle IF and the bullpen and didn't use the money to address any new starting pitching. I don't know how that can be viewed as ownership trying to push us over the top after a very impressive 2010 season.

 

As far as your point, I'm not sure that we should just be okay with the declining years that have started and may continue for another couple...not when our core of position players are still solid and relatively young and not when the declining years happen a year after the new ballpark opens...a ballpark that the taxpayers were told was needed to keep us competitive. Cutting payroll after a 99 loss season and likely doing it again after a 96 loss season, is cause for concern.

[Jim Crikket]

I'm one of many who wrote last fall that there was no reason for the Twins to slash payroll the way they did. In fact, it was exactly the wrong thing to do. At the very least, the 2011 level should have been retained. Does anyone think the Twins would have lost 96 games if Terry Ryan would have had, say, another $15 million to spend on two decent starting pitchers? Of course, both of them could have come down with bilateral arm weakness and been "day to day" from May through September, but IF Ryan had chosen two starting pitchers to spend $15 million on and had done so as wisely as he chose Willingham and Doumit, this would have been a far different season and the Pohlads wouldn't be fretting about having lost hundreds of thousands in attendance.

 

So going back to the original question of this thread, where should the 2013 payroll sit? It should be exactly where it was in 2011 because it shouldn't have been cut in 2012. This stuff Ryan spouts about money not being the issue is just crapola that he has to say for public consumption because he knows it will do him no good with his ownership to tell the truth.

 

"It takes money to make money," "you get what you pay for," and "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity," are cliches. But they became cliches because they're true. Cutting payroll last year had a direct negative effect on the product on the field and a crappy product on the field (again) had a direct negative effect on attendance/revenue. Cutting payroll further in 2013 and expecting a different result would be insane.

[ThePuck]

They blamed last season on injuries plain and simple. They were able to sell that idea. Then they try and sell the idea that 112M was overspending in an attempt to push us over the top, that what they spent this year was more in-line with what they really should have spent in 2011, but they forgot to mention they didn't really bring anyone in when that payroll rose and they dropped their middle IF, gutted their bullpen and ignored starting pitching needs.

 

Perhaps they really thought a healthy Span, Morneau and Mauer would garner quite a bit more wins...and maybe their returns should have allowed us to have more wins (especially since the division got even weaker)...but by not improving the pitching, and ignoring the middle infield, the team couldn't turn it around.

[johnnydakota]

Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80

 

Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million.

 

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_right_move_for_Twins010512

 

Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year.

 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm

 

Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility.

 

What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.

mlb gameday internet sales of over 12.5 million subscriptions was divide evenly among the 30 teams or about 67 million per team .....